Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    	I was watching a cable tv show this weekend, on the perception
    of *beauty*. They covered all kinds in trying to define it. What
    I did find interesting, when they were covering Women's fashions,
    was that the two (female) fashion designers interviewed both made it 
    clear that is was male perception, not marketing or sales, which
    drives the "mystique" of only a certain type of beauty having worth.
    
    	So "male perception" leads to "certain type of beauty" which
    if attained, leads to "not taken seriously"? Is this part of the
    "Gridle"?                                   
    
    	Joe Jas

    Women don't dress for men's approval.  They dress for other women.
    
    Those of you who know me know that my idea of makeup is factor-15
    lip-sunblock from the ski shop and my idea of a hair style is a clip
    for my hair.  I occasionally wear a sundress or something when it's
    hot, but around work you'll find me in shirt and jeans.  I have dressed
    this way since I was in college. 
    
    I have never -- and I mean literally never -- had a man comment
    unfavorably on what I was wearing.  I receive many compliments and
    have never had any trouble making a connetion with a man I wanted
    to get to know.  I have never had a man treat me as though he thought
    less of me for what I was wearing; in fact, I've had considerably
    less trouble with apparent sexism than many other women I know.
    
    But I have frequently been criticized BY OTHER WOMEN for the way I
    dress. I have had acquaintances take me aside and tell me very gently,
    for my own good, that if I would put on some makeup and pay some
    attention to what I wear, I "could be very attractive".  I've had other
    women tell me my style of dress is disruptive to the businesslike
    environment.  

    It seems that by not dressing to attract men, by having my fashion
    statement be "I'm not playing this game," I threaten traditional
    women.  I don't know if they're afraid I'll get all the men or just
    don't want to face what they're doing, or what.

    Honestly now -- if you're part of a heterosexual couple -- does
    your man even NOTICE when you change your hairdo, or your makeup?
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie I think I do agree with you that women dress for other women.
    The larger issue I was hoping that people would adress in this note
    however, was the politics of fashion...do you think that Friedan
    is correct in her observations, for example, that the return to
    the mini and the extra high heels is ominous?
    Bonnie J

    re.3 (Bonnie)
    
    I think the word ominous is a bit strong...
    
    
    My thought on the short skirts fashion, is they're largely impractical.
    Also, a lot of women who follow fashion closely, really don't wear
    these hemlines well.  If I saw my Mom wearing one... well, obviously
    I like to see women in flattering clothes.  
    
    Theresa.

    Putting aside the question of 7" heels for the moment, I think there
    is an aspect of the mini fashion that is just plain fun--it's not
    that god-awful "Dress for Success" idea.
    
    I've seen the mini in photos worn more often with opaque hose and
    low heels.  The opaque hose+low heels makes this fashion more-easily
    worn.
    
    This doesn't answer your question--I think if this turns out to
    be all this available--if we see a slavish following of the fashion
    the way it was the first time, then Friedan's idea will seem more
    valid.
    
    Briana

    re .0:
    
    Gloria Steinam loves mini-skirts.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .3 --
    
    Bonnie, I think that if women enforce fashion on other women, the whole
    idea of a 'male idea of feminine beauty' becomes highly tenuous, and if
    miniskirts and incredibly spiked heels are ominious, it's not in the
    way Freidan thinks it is. 
    
    Fashion as fun is one thing, as is the issue of what is 'appropriate'
    for the office or other environments.  I presume, however, that Freidan
    is talking about the same thing as .1, the idea that men expect a
    certain standard of beauty from women, and if an individual female
    deviates from it, she risks not getting "a man" (i.e. enough sex).
    
    Women, especially younger women, certainly expend a great deal of
    energy trying to keep up with a certain image of beauty that is
    presented in the media.  I don't think there's any question that a
    great portion of this image is not very healthy, and certainly much of
    that expended energy could be better channeled to developing career
    skills, say, or pursuing activities the individual finds rewarding.
    
    The question is, why do so many women find this media image so
    compelling that they'll spend so much time, money, energy, and often
    even their health dieting and cosmeticing themselves into fashionable
    thinness?  
    
    I think it's because they're afraid they'll lose the community of
    sisterhood, that they'll be outcasts from their own kind if they
    ignore the rules of the game.
    
    With high fashion, the game is man-hunting.  When I was first getting
    involved in the women's movement in the early seventies, anyone who
    dared dress in a way that might be considered attractive to the
    opposite sex risked being thrown out in the name of political
    correctness.  The way the Atlanta matrons react to Scarlett O'Hara when
    she throws off the mourning of widowhood in _Gone_With_the_Wind_
    exemplifies what I'm talking about.  I go along with Scarlett -- I
    never realized what a burden a good reputation was until I lost it! 
    
    Men aren't sending us back to the home and the kitchen.  Other women
    are.
    
    --bonnie

    re .7
    
�    Men aren't sending us back to the home and the kitchen.  Other women
�    are.
    
    Dunno, last week my boss suggested I "go buy some clothes" -- that
    I'd feel better if I looked better.
    
    Lee

re: .2

    Honestly now -- if you're part of a heterosexual couple -- does
    your man even NOTICE when you change your hairdo, or your makeup?

When I was part of a heterosexual couple, I was real careful *not*
to comment on a new hairdo.  I tried that once or twice and discovered
that no woman has ever liked a new hairdo for the first day or so.

Martin.

    
    
    when i had my waist-length hair cut off, i needed support from my
    partner. now it's short enough that people occasionally call me "sir",
    and i love it when r compliments new cuts. i guess what i'm trying
    to say is that i enjoy my hair the way it is BUT i would consider
    changing it if r really hated it. 

    re: .10 --
    
    Suzanne --
    
    No, I definitely didn't mean sisterhood in the feminist sense, just in
    the sense of "belonging to a community of women."  Perhaps the
    willingness to contort oneself for acceptance is an unhealthy
    manifestation of the same need that leads, in a healthy context to
    feminist sisterhood?  (Speculation on my part.) 
    
    Let me try to clarify and expand a bit.
    
    In my experience (which I admit is quite limited and in many cases has
    not been representative of the experience of the majority), groups of
    women enforce certain standards on each other's behavior. 
    
    These standards differ from group to group.  One example is women,
    often young, who pursue thinness and fashion.  When I listen to my
    daughter's friend say that if she were thinner, mayber her mother would
    love her more, I wince inside.  (I used to think she was exaggerating
    until I met her mother, but that's another story...)  
    
    Another example is the sweatshirts and jeans that were the uniform of
    college feminists in the early '70's.  I think this example is pretty
    well out of date now, but at the time, you couldn't call yourself
    a feminist if you were wearing a dress.

    I wasn't trying to say that the women in one group tried to impose
    their standards on women in the other group.  
    
    An example of what I mean by saying it's women who do this to other
    women took place a few weeks ago.  While I was away from DEC and home
    with Steven these last few months, I took Steven to a gymnastics play
    group once a week.  I got to know several mothers about my age. They
    all had been working professionals, but they were now home full time
    with their kids.  I look like them, too -- sweaters and jeans and a
    preschooler in tow. 
    
    But when I started talking about going back to work, they were
    horrified.  They wanted to know how I could risk putting Steven in day
    care when there was such a chance he could be abused and when nobody
    can raise a child like a loving mother who knows her child's wants and
    preferences.  They accused me of being 'forced' back into the job
    market by family greed (!) and said I should have the strength to make
    my own choice -- meaning the same choice they made. None of them ever
    invited me to join their skiing group (leave the kids in the nursery,
    go out and ski 5 km.), either! 
    
    --bonnie

    
    (Given the fact that *everyone's* casual clothes are pretty much
    of a piece - jeans, sweaters,Reebok's...)
    
    1. Men's dress-up clothes are more comfortable than women's dress-up
    clothes. Shoes, especially.
    
    2. Men's dress-up clothes allow more freedom of movement than women's
    dress-up clothes. Shoes, especially.
    
    3. Clothing style is somewhat of a reflection of social...er..."stuff".
    (Don't never say I ain't literut)
      
     i.e., back in the early 70's when the Women's Movement was going
    strong, and there was a tendency toward...hmmm..."androgony" in
    clothing, everybody wore Nehru shirts and bell-bottoms, and women's
    dress shoes (men's too, now that I think of it) were clunky, low-heeled
    type deals.
    
     Now, (as I wonder what happened to "the Movement") high heels are
    coming back. More than *any* other fashion style, I see the high
    heel as the #1 "hobbler" of women. They are bad for your back, bad
    for your feet, bad for your mobility. There is *nothing* to recommend
    this type of shoe but the fact than men like their looks. Bonnie
    R's idea notwithstanding, I believe the high heel's existence is
    due *solely* (heh,heh) to the fact that men like the look. 
    
     Granted, they make you look taller, but why do we need to look
    taller? Need for more power? Back to sexism again.
    
    
    I agree with Ms. Freidan - I think this fashion trend is a move
    in the direction of trying to please ...hmmm...well, "the patriarchy",
    if you will - if not individual men. 
    
    Bonnie, if you have to "dress for success" at work, and the hierarchy
    of your workplace is male, are you not dressing for men?
    
    --DE
    
    

I do think the new fashion speaks volumes and isn't saying
very nice things to women.  Even fashion designers themselves have ad-
mitted that their looks are "exaggerated" and that women shouldn't take
them literally.  Problem is, many men do and THATS the reason women
find fashion so hard to ignore.  I personally find it all a joke but
I know damn well the people from whom I want jobs, loans and love 
find female fashion pretty and fun diversion and probably just think of 
women who DON'T play the game as simply lacking "what it takes" rather 
than thinking they may have made a conscious decision to resist being
"decorated" instead of dressed.

There was a Cathy comic that outlined exactly what I'm saying.  The
receptionist, Charlene is telling Cathy about the new hemlines and Cathy
insists that it's ridiculous and she isn't going to go along.  The
next panel shows two guys walking by Cathy in her below-the-knee skirt
and one whispers loudly to the other, "Ha, she must have fat knees".

You can just picture the look on Cathy's face.  Her philosophy means
squat in the real world.  The two office guys are busy having a field
day enjoying OTHER women's minis and if that isn't enough there's always
the magazines to turn to.  They're always ready to give men a dose of
what REAL womanhood should look like, reality be damned!  Instead of
being praised Cathy was ridiculed because fashion is fun for most men
and there are plenty of women around for them to enjoy it with if she
won't play.

And lest anyone think I'm just ranting because I have fat knees,
not true.  I personally love minis because I can wear them.  But to de-
mand a woman wear them or be suspect is as cruel and misogynistic as 
fashion has always been to women.

Think about what fasion really is.  A bunch of this year's designers
decorating a bunch of this year's models because that's what they all
like to do.  Now if a bunch of Opera singers got together every season
and re-designed Operas, would men foam and women die?  Would anyone
except Opera lovers even know or care?  

The world of fashion is the exact same thing to me - a bunch of people 
enjoying themselves in a profession that doesn't really concern the general 
public that much.  But this lack of concern is what spawned the creation of 
the fashion magazine - to GET designer's works before the public and MAKE it 
a public concern.  It's a completely forced concept. 

Even if women did object, pictures of fashion models in expensive clothes is a
welcome idea to many men.  So men created magazines and the pressure was on. 
Women buy them to scan the competition - to find out what men want.  Fashion 
magazines as well as skin magazines are not a peek into the world of women, but
a big window on the male mind and that's the interest they hold for women.

I always get a kick of this "new" model or that "new" model.  We are given
the distinct impression that this person has been born and has
changed the course of male lust.  In truth, women of all genetic types are
always around.  Only male tastes change.  A hot "new" model might have not
been successful in the days when men liked their women a different way.
Again, proof that we are not looking at anything special about a particular 
woman, but something very specific about the male mind.

re  VIA::RANDALL:

>I don't think there's any question that a great portion of this image is 
>not very healthy, 

True, but the problem is that it's just not healthy for WOMEN.  Most
things that negatively affect only women are of low priority.  I think most 
men would be up in arms if they were suddenly denied their regular ration of 
fashion models.  To these men, fashion is just "fun" and they don't understand
why women are so freaked out about it.  They can't seem to understand the
misogyny in any idea that says to women, "You will either be born with this
incredibly rare genetic combination that we like right now or you will spend
your life typing for minimum wage and struggling to get anything more than 
that unless you are very, very lucky."

If everybody went to an auction with $100 and the auctioneer knew it, the 
prices would reflect that.  Now suddenly if someone entered the auction-hall 
with $1000 and started giving more money to SOME people, suddenly prices would
increase.  The auctioneer wouldn't spend too much time worrying about how 
negatively it affected the other people - he or she would only see the benefit 
to themselves.

Same thing in fashion.  Some women are taken and treated to the best money
has to offer.  Surgery, fat farms, professional makeup & hair, expensive
high fashion and the best photographers.  Men, analogous to the auctioneer
in the story, don't worry too much about the women left behind.  They don't
mind some women eclipsing all the rest because they only see the benefit to
themselves - the skin mags, fashion mags, calendars, tv ads, ad nauseum.  If
there's any problem, they rationalize, it's OUR problem we weren't born as
perfect as Miss pick-a-month.

>I think it's because they're afraid they'll lose the community of sisterhood, 
>that they'll be outcasts from their own kind if they ignore the rules of the 
>game.
 
I don't think so.  "Sisterhood" is a relatively new idea and we're discussing
traditional concepts and their reasons.  Fashion is used to SEPARATE women
as was many things in the past.  Skipping fashion in favor of individual
good taste would be uniting.  Expecting us to compete with each other in
a struggle for the impossible and ridiculous goal of being "perfect" to men
is a way to keep women enemies of each other and busy paying attention to men
and their desires instead.

If one woman, like Cathy, attmepts to ignore the fashion rules men have dic-
tated for her and reinforce for her daily, she knows she stands conspicuously 
alone in her plainness among the zillions of women men have used to fill their
media who stare seductively at her man day in and day out.  It takes great
courage to live in someone else's world while ignoring their dictates and that
goes way beyond just fashion.  This is not a "trivial woman's issue".

>Men aren't sending us back to the home and the kitchen.  Other women are.

Good lord, we spend so much of our lives jumping through men's hoops I can't 
imagine we could actually offer a hoop to another woman with a straight face 
or that any woman would simply think, "Here we go again!" and jump through it!

I really think women who "suggest" fashion to other women believe they are be-
ing genuinely helpful to a woman they assume doesn't know that men are extreme-
ly "looks-driven".  I don't think any pressure at all is intended.  In a man's 
world, it's hard for many women to fathom a female life that doesn't revolve 
around jumping through men's hoops.  I believe that they feel a casually
dressed woman must not realize the importance of female looks or she would 
dress "better".  I think making these women understand that yes, you realize
it very well but think it's so much dog poo would probably elicit praise and
wistful envy.

Whether "The Look" is mini-skirts, cleavage-display, bare midriffs, exposed
shoulders, skin-tight jeans or whatever makes absolutely no difference.
The bottom line is that once again, the fashion designers are decorating the 
fashion models like Christmas trees or French Poodles and the
media is making sure both men and women see it because once the men
    see it, the pressure on their women to conform will follow like
    magic.
    
The lives or concerns of women who are not models simply don't count.  We don't
interest the fashion designers.  I say they shouldn't interest us.

I don't think the fashion scam works anymore.  Women today buy what they want
to buy and wear what they want to wear.  A financial magazine I've recently
read stated that retail sales have plummeted because "women just do not like
the new styles and so are not buying them".  Perhaps the fashion designers
are in for a lesson in reality,....  or maybe the men they design women's
clothes for will bail them out and actually buy them_:-).

    Do people remember Andrea Dworkin's book 'Women Hating'?  One of
    her theses was that historically women have been forced to please
    men to survive, yet it was the women in the cultures who had to
    do the sometimes odious work of training the daughters to be appealing
    enough to men to insure their survival.  What a double bind!
    
    Dworkin was one of the first authors I read who cast foot-binding
    and clitoridectomy (gaaa) in that light.  The women enforced it.
    Mothers, aunts and sisters regularly mutilated young girls in some
    cultures.  They would have been horrified to have 'failed' the young
    women for whom they cared, and so participated in perpetuating the
    mutilation.  
    
    Feminists today can say that they 'bought into' the male expectation,
    but on another level these women really were doing what they could to teach
    their daughters to survive.  There weren't a lot of other choices
    that they had experienced.
    
    Both Bonnie's and Sandy's observations fit into this model.   The
    men expect it, and reward it.  Some women anxiously perpetuate it.
    And yes, others do enjoy today's version of it.
    
    I think it was Dworkin, but I'm not sure, who said that we finally
    have the power to break out of the vicious circle today now that
    our survivability is not tied to pleasing a man.  (Many feminists
    have actually said that!)   
    
    Sometimes I think the conditioning runs much deeper than anything
    else, and it scares me.  At the same time, it feels good to be 35
    and old enough not to care a lot about the scenario in the Cathy
    cartoon!
    
    Holly
    

    RE: Sandy - I couldn't agree more.
    
    This reminds me of something that happened in the fashion industry
    very recently - maybe last year around this time. Some designer
    had "invented" the latest craze - hip pads! Fake hips that women
    could insert in pockets sewn into skirts and slacks!
    
    I *WISH* I could remember Ellen Goodman's comment - it was wwonderful.
    And said, in essence, these guys (designers) are so out of touch
    with the average woman, have spent so much time with overly-thin
    models, that they actually went and invented FAKE HIPS!!!
    
    Which are needed by approximately the number of women you could
    count in binary.
    
    The mind boggles.
    
    --DE
    

    invented?
    wasn't that a fashion several hundred years ago?

    um Liz...I think you are talking about the bustle...and that was
    popular about a hundred years ago...
    
    can't you see us all now with big bushel baskets tied on behind
    us!?!
    
    but then again I always admired Renior's taste in women ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    actually, i'm talking about something called "panniers", (french
    for "basket") which i worked with when i was making costumes. ann
    broomhead might know more.
    
    liz

    okay :-)  I was only "pulling your chain" anyway ;-)
    
    after all if mods can't tease each other in public what will
    the file come to  ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    The following passage is taken from Alison Lurie's 1981 book
    _The_Language_of_Clothes_.

    
    To Freedom and Partway Back
    
    ...During the 1970s pants suits and slacks were worn to work, to
    parties, to the theater, in elegant restaurants and on international
    planes, by women of all ages. They were usually accompanied by
    comfortable low-heeled shoes or boots. Fashion editors asserted, adn
    women believed, that the bad old days were over forever. 
    
    In the last few years, however, there have been ominous signs of
    retrechment, and a counterrevolutionary movement seems to be gaining
    force. If one is pessimistic it is possible to see the sixties and
    seventies as merely a period of temporary vicotry. Indeed, the entire
    history of female fashion from 1910 to the present can be viewed
    as a series of more or less successful campaigns to force, flatter
    or bribe women back into uncomfortable and awkward styles, not only
    for purposes of Vicarious Ostentation and security of sexual ownership,
    but also and increasingly in order to handicap them in professional
    competition with men. The hobble skirt, the girdle, the top-heavy
    hats of the teens and the forties, the embarrassingly short dresses
    of the twenties and the sixties, all have aided this war effort.
    Today its most effective strategic devices are fashionable footwear
    and the demand for slimness.
    
    
    The Shoe as a Strategic Weapon
    
    Attempts to limit female mobility by hampering locomotion are ancient
    and almost universal. The foot-binding of upper-class Chinese girls
    and the Nigerian custom of loading women's legs with pounds of heavy
    brass wire are extreme examples, but all over the world similar
    stratagems have been employed to make sure that once you have caught
    a woman she cannot run away, and even if she stays around she cannot
    keep up with you. What seems odd is that all these devices have
    been perceived as beautiful, not only by men but by women. The lotus
    foot, which seems to us a deformity, was passionately admired in
    China for centuries, and today most people in Western society see
    nothing ugly in the severely compressed toes produced by modern
    footwear. The high-heeled, narrow-toed shoes that for most of this
    century have been an essential part of woman's costume are considered
    sexually attractive, partly because they make the legs look longer
    -- an extended leg is the biological sign of sexual availability
    in several animal species -- and because they produce what
    anthropologists call a "courtship strut". They also make standing
    for any length of time painful, walking exhausting and running
    impossible. The halting, tiptoe gait they produce is thought
    provocative -- perhaps because it guarantees that no woman wearing
    them can outrun a man who is chasing her. Worst of all, if they
    are worn continually from adolescence on, they deform the muscles
    of the feet and legs so that it becomes even more painful and difficult
    to walk in flat soles.
    
    Literally as well as figuratively modern women's shoes are what
    keeps Samantha from running as fast as Sammy. As anyone who has
    worn them can testify, ti is hard to concentrate on your job when
    your feet are killing you -- especially if you are faint with hunger
    because you had only half a grapefruit and coffee for breakfast
    so as to stay a glamorous ten pounds below your natural healthy
    weight. For a while in the sixties and seventies it was not necessary
    to be handicapped in this way unless you chose to be. During the
    last few years, however, women have begun wearing tight high-heeled
    shoes again, even with pants; and the most fashionable styles are
    those that, like clogs and ankle-strap sandals, give least support
    to the feet and make walking most difficult. 

    i just looked up paniers. they were popular in Louis XIV's time -- late
    17th and early 18th centuries. women's skirts were sometimes widened up
    to 5 feet, and furniture design was influenced by these dresses. (just
    think, you would have had to turn sideways to go through most modern
    doorways). 
    

    Re: .20
    
    Renoir, P.P. Reubens, ahhh yahhhsss. I love 'em. I think my sweetie
    started really believing me when I told her I loved plump women
    when I gave her a small print of Renoir's "Odalisque" and told her
    that *that* was my ideal of feminine beauty, and that that's what
    I thought she looked like!
    
    As for fashions... well "Odalisque" sure looks fashionable to me...
    Last time I was in D.C. I made a pilgrimage to the National Gallery of
    Art to look at the original. 
    
    Now I'm not running down "thin", but it sure is easier to cuddle
    with someone who has a little padding (since I don't have enough
    of my own). Besides, there's that much more to hug!
    
    	-- Charles

    I'm more than half convinced that women's fashions are designed
    to turn men OFF. Garish colors, lousy proportions, unbecoming
    hairstyles, sweaters that come to the knees fer pete's sake !
    Skirts that prohibit walking ! let alone running or kicking. 
    Talk about dangerous fashions, that's it - stuff that you can't
    move freely in. And just *WHO* is telling all these women that
    narrow as.. oops derrieres are sexy ? If you have to look twice
    to determine gender she's much too thin. KISS principle holds
    for clothes as well as engineering. Men are lucky - form follows
    function in clothes. Wide tie or narrow tie is the only trend
    which needs to be observed. And a medium rep tie will get you
    anywhere. Yes I know i'm ranting, but women are going to have to
    turn on their opressors, those bizarre Parisians who dictate
    the terms they dress by. 
    
    Dana_who_prefers_Maillol_to_Reubens_but_anyway

I don't like women's fashions either.  I hate pastel colors, *especially* pink
and purple.  I hate padded shoulders, I don't want to go out with a linebacker!

It seems to me that personally there are more women telling their men how to
dress then there are men telling their women how to dress.  When I tell a woman
how to dress, it's to get them to get rid of some of those fashions.  I do
like skirts, but I like full long skirts which aren't much of a handicap.

For me, the *worst* fashion is having to get up early other morning (I just
can't bear to do it every morning) and slice my face and neck into hamburger
while shaving.  :-) I'd gladly wear a skirt every day if only I didn't have to
shave. 

Actually, I heard that Houston is now 'the' big fashion center...

Jim.

    one very attractive way I see some men "decorating" or "expressing"
    themselves in my office area is with a wide variety of intriguing
    and tasteful sweaters.  They make a quiet, masculine statement,
    and there is quite a variety of color/texture/pattern that they
    can achieve, while still being "acceptable" (at least in our area,
    which is not generally seen by customers).
    
    Since I don't have the figure or the money or the energy to keep
    up with today's fashions (ever look at Elle magazine?  ever seen
    anyone dress like that in public?), I simply wear clothing that
    has the ultimate combination:  inexpensive, durable, simple,
    attractive.  Someday I will have the money to upgrade to a slighly
    higher level of clothing (slacks instead of corduroys, nicer sweaters
    and blouses, etc.), but I am not in a hurry.  And around the office,
    my black leather walk-a-thon sneakers are des rigeur....
    
    -Jody
    

    Charles, your note is 'music to my eyes'.  Wish more people felt
    that way (or could admit they felt that way).
    
    As someone who's never been thin, I've always teased my sweeties that
    there is more of me to snuggle with.  Most of them have felt
    immediately compelled to remind me of the health risks...I know about
    those, and I do what I can, but it's nice to feel valued and loved in
    the meantime while working on the other problem!
    
    Holly 

I agree with some others who feel that fashion 
merchandisers should just naturally want to appeal to women to get our 
money or they wouldn't be able to sell their product.  But what you are 
missing, (and what we are complaining about), is the approach a culture 
based heavily on sexism uses to do this.

Men's products are of course most often filling a need.  The men manu-
facturing and marketing men's products pretty much know what men want
and need.

But the approach to women has always been not to discover their desires
and then fullfill them but rather to create desires in their men knowing 
that women will do what it takes to attempt to fulfill THEM.

Don't forget not much was even KNOWN about women until recently.  No adver-
tiser or manufacturer really knew how to approach women, what their desires 
were and how to satisfy them.  No one was really interested.  No studies were 
done.  It was always simply assumed that women got married, had babies, kept 
house and wanted to stand by their man, amen.

The "get-em-through-their-men" approach, hooks the females every time in a
culture where women need to please men to survive.  Without this need, the
approach doesn't work.  I believe the current regression back to bondage
for women is definitely a response to women's growing emancipation from
the domination of men.  The fashion is aimed at younger girls, junior high
girls for whom sexuality is very new, very interesting and doesn't carry
many scars. 

This approach works without worrying about what women like or want and pro-
vides the added benefit of delight to the men of the culture who get stroked 
all day long through ads allegedly aimed at women.  Cosmo isn't too far from 
Playboy.  It doesn't need to reflect what women want in order to be successful.
It only needs to reveal the desires of men and women will fall all over each
other and part with their money gladly in order to find out what those de-
sires are and get an edge over the competition.  Not pleasing men, remember,
has traditionally meant living a life of low-status, your own low-pay, lonli-
ness and even ridicule.  It's no wonder male desire is a strong lure for
women and is the major avenue in the marketing approach to them.

The desired effect of this marketing approach to women is insecurity and panic 
which results in them purchasing gallons of hope, yards of possibility, and 
hundreds of dreams.

They don't have to try and please us.  The fasion industry is one of men 
having a fun time pleasing each other while women are supposed to watch from 
the sidelines, absorb men's desires, buy into men's dreams instead of their
own and spend their time trying to emulate men's chosen goddesses.  The
women who don't are in many ways suspect of "having fat knees" and are left
behind in favor of those who do.  This is woman-hating clear and simple.

"Be good little decorations for us just like Paulina here or YOU'LL
    be the one to suffer!"

THIS is how they market fashion to women.
    

Y'all might want to read James Clavell's novel "Whirlwind" (about
the Iranian revolution).  There are some extremely interesting
passages there about women's fashion.  (Also about the treatment
of women in general.)

Martin.

    I seem to recall that there are some very famous female fashion
    designers AND off-the-shelf merchandisers.
    
    And for those who think that designers create fashions for women,
    to sexually stimulate men, please recall the "look" of the "midi"
    and "maxi".
                                                             
    If the (posited all-male-conspiracy) designers *had* been trying to 
    create yet another "revealing" fashion for women, for men to lust 
    after/ogle, they sure missed the mark with those designs.
    
      Alan  

    Well given how comfortable the longer skirts are, Alan, maybe
    women just got lucky for once :-)
    Bonnie

    It's interesting.  I've also heard it posited --and if I recall
    correctly, saw something in the literature-- that women try to dress
    for men, but wind up dressing for other women.  Something to do with,
    as has already been pointed out, the fact that men tend not to notice
    any but the most dramatic changes unless the relationship is new, while
    women tend to provide increasing amounts of feedback as their
    relationship deepens no matter whether the relationship is a positive
    or negative one. 
    
    Again if I recall the investigation correctly, most male designers (and
    therefore most designers) tend to be unconcerned with whether the women
    who wear their clothes are more sexually attractive or less so as a
    result of their efforts:  to them, women are kinetic platforms for what
    amounts to abstract sculpture. 
                         
    						=maggie

    I've been convinced that the constant change in women's fashions
    is to get women to spend thousands of dollars every year for new
    clothes whether they need them or not.
    
    --- jerry

    .36, Jerry, I think you hit the nail right on the head!  (But they're
    not getting rich on my jeans-and-sweater budget.)  I notice that
    as men are more willing to pay more money for their clothing budget,
    men's clothing styles have begun to change more as well.  Just to
    encourage them to keep it up, I suppose.

    .16 -- Holly, thanks for clarifying the mechanism of enforcing fashion
    standards from the motiviation for conforming.  Your explanation
    makes my own thinking a lot clearer -- how we, each individual woman,
    can be an oppressor of our own daughters and neices and neighbors. 
    
    The next generation is looking to *us* for models of how to run
    their lives!  What a scary thought that is . . . I bought a flashy
    satin jacket a while back, the kind a rock musician would wear,
    just to wear out on those rare times we go dancing.  Kat borrows
    it from me sometimes; one of her friend exclaimed, "Wow!  Your *mother*
    owns that?  She must be *some lady*!" [her emphasis.]
    
    Me?  A fashion role model?  Some lady?  But I'm the one who can't
    write and cook in the same life cycle!  
    
    But for a bunch of eighth-graders, knowing that I don't have to
    write and cook means knowing that they don't have to write and cook.
    
    .35 -- Maggie, last night I was reading an interview with Oscar de la
    Renta (I have no idea if I got that name right) in which he said
    almost word for word what you report:  that the clothing is an art
    form, the woman just the platform for the kinetic sculpture.  A
    woman isn't meant to move or function in his clothing, only to be
    admired, as the work of art that she is.
    
    But there are lots of women designing women's clothes.  Anne Klein
    is particularly gentle to the more mature and robust figure....
    
    --bonnie, who has been spending her days debugging Pascal instead
    of noting

Male (and female) fashion designers may design clothes to show women off to men,
and women may buy them to show themselves off to men, but that has little or
nothing to do with men.  Men are usually oblivious to it.

Myself, I hate pastel colors, wild designs, the 'miami mice' look...  I'd hate
to wear pink.  I suspect that part is conditioning, but not all of it.  I
suspect that part of it has to do with the following. 

It has seemed to me for a long time that fashion has changed from "beauty" and
"pretty", to "shocking", "eye catching".  The purpose is no longer to "look
nice/ pretty/ beautiful", the purpose is now to get your attention, to stand out
in the crowd.  I'd rather have the beauty, thank you... 

When I went Christmas Shopping to buy clothes for women, I could not find
***anything*** in a chain or mall store that I liked.  What I ended up getting
was 'folk' clothing for New England Contra dancing.  I found some very nice,
inexpensive clothes at "Annie Dakota" (porter square & chemsford), and "India
Palace" (Rt 27 Acton). 

BTW, I believe that there is beauty in *every* woman (and every man).  A lot of
it comes from inside.  Being Loved makes some people really *shine* from inside.
All you have to do, is make the most of what God gave you.

Jim. 

    One thing I always look for in clothes is front closures.  It has
    always bothered me that buttons, zippers and hooks are very
    uncomfortable and difficult for me to manipulate.  I wonder why
    any woman would design that into clothing.  I have not noticed any
    man's pants with the zipper in the back or a tastefully designed
    shirt with the buttons down the back.  This leads me to think that
    it has been men who designed the back closure - for their convenience.
    
    Also another must is pockets - I would rather carry my belongings
    in my pockets than I don't have to concern myself with carrying
    a BAG around with me.  A lot of young girls pants come without pockets
    and boys pants always have pockets.
    
    I think these and other design devices, the never-too-thin style,
    high heels and too short shirts are *designed* to maintain an attitude
    of dependancy.
    
    

    re .39:
    
    zippers:
                   
    	In womens's pants, the zipper is used only to assist in removing
    	them. In men's pants the zipper performs another function which
    	dictates its location. Thus, men are stuck with the zipper where
    	it is, while on women's pants they can be placed wherever they
    	fit into the fashion.
    
    pockets:
        
    	I always thought it was unfair that women get to put all their
    	stuff in a bag, while men are limited to only those things that
    	will fit in their pockets. I do not find it very comfortable
    	at all to be sitting on a wallet while also having keys dig into 
    	my thigh. And then there is the proverbial shirt pocket full
    	of pens.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

    re .39 >women's pants without pockets...*designed* to maintain...
           >dependency
    
    Absolutely ! As long as *she* is carrying that purse she needs
    somebody big and strong (like me) to protect her from purse-
    snatchers. 
    
    dana

RE: Bags

I've never understood the insistance of 'women' on having hand held or shoulder
slung purses.  If I want to carry more then I can conveniently stuff in my
pockets (30%, usually books), I use a small backpack/knapsack, or a cross sling
bag.  These carry the stuff more securely, and they are a lot easier on your
back. 

Also, 'women' insist on taking these bulky bags *everywhere*; I take them from
house to car to office, if that.  If I am going somewhere else, and I need
something from the bag, I take that something, not the whole bag...

Jim.

    Letty Cotton Pogrebin's book (of which I cant' rememebr the name)
    does a real number on how little girl's (mostly dress-up) clothes
    encourage dependence and little boys' clothes encourage INdependence.
    
    Pockets, front closures, etc. are all easier for kids in dressing
    themselves (adults, too - how many women had/have to ask for help
    in zipping a full-length back zipper)
    
    I'm *glad* fly-fronts are functional, but there are more reasons
    for functionality than just ...er...excretory. I mean, if *real*
    functionality was wanted in that area, the fellas would all be wearing
    kilts.
    
    --DE
    

    Sometimes women lug 'that bag' everywhere with them to maintain
    an intimate relationship with the location of the nearest tampon.
   
    (I'm not quite liberated enough to stick those in my pocket unless
    it's a quick dash from office to womens' room, and then I can use
    my sleeve.)
    
    Holly

RE: .43    -< what does a scotsman wear under his kilt? >-
             (there is nothing worn under a kilt,
              its all in perfectly good working order)

Kilts are not the answer.  There is this heavy leather Sporran that kind
of hangs down in front (protection, a Scotsman fights to win).  When its
time to visit a urinal I need to hold the sporran up, hold the kilt
up and hope that I have good aim cause I can't see a thing down there.


My personal thoughts are that fashion designers should be drawn and quartered,
and people should dress for comfort.

- ken   

    
    
    Silly me. I thought the answer was "shoes"!
    
    :-)
    
    --DE
    

    Another reason for purses would be that the average backpack
    doesn't accessorize the average business woman's dress (:-))
    and those of us who wear makeup and wear dressy clothes
    with no pockets keep the makeup in the purse. But with Holly
    a major reason to carry one's purse around is during those
    times of the month.
    
    Bonnie

    Plus there's always HIS stuff you have to carry around!
    
    I watched the movie "Making Mr. Right" last night and the thing
    that struck me the most was the female lead, a publicist, was so
    bound up in her high fashion clothes all the time!  Even without
    seeing this note, her hobbling in her obviously expensive clothes
    and high heels looked so ridiculous!  And this is an 80's movie!
    
    Because of this note, I got to thinking that it was the hobble itself
    that makes fashion and the women who wear it attractive to men.
    Only briefly in the 60's and 70's was the image of a free, smiling
    woman with the breeze in her hair walking alone outside with a wide
    stride, (in a long skirt or pants), considered desirable.  But that's
    gone now.  Women are once again supposed to be bound and pouting
    or be suspect of "having fat knees", of being gay or of being a militant
    feminist, (gasp!).
    
    And Jim, men are NOT oblivious to fashion.  They are dead set against
    admitting they "understand" anything about it but most know exactly
    which women are in fashion and which are not regardless of their
    own personal preferences.  They may not be able to put it into words,
    (as with other things), but they know when they are looking at it
    every time.
    
    The heroine in "Making Mr. Right" was running through a mall after a 
    man and she looked so damn HINDERED I couldn't believe it.  From all 
    the highest of "high" fashion over the centuries, the common thread 
    seems to be that the "bondaged" woman has always been the most fashion-
    able except for a brief period in the late 60's and early 70's.
    
    Women with crippled feet were tops.  So were the ones with their
    waists boned in so tight they couldn't breathe.  So were the ones who
    had surgery to remove their lower ribs.  So was the leading lady of 
    this 80's movie who hobbles through the mall in futile pursuit of a 
    man easily outrunning her.  And so are the women of today who wear
    12 inch, tight skirts and spike heels.  They represent the current
    version of what men have obviously looked for in women for centuries - 
    restricted physical movement.  They can't really run away from men
    nor can they ever keep up with them.  Says a lot about men, doesn't
    it?  
    
    I wonder why they're so sure we'll run away from them that they have 
    actually come to see the bound and gagged woman, (gagged as in "keeps 
    quiet", gagged as in "pictures"), as supremely sexy and the ones who 
    aren't as "having fat knees", translated, "not worth my time".  That
    seems to mean that female sexuality isn't simply just a part of a WOMAN 
    but rather is determined by her level of self-subjugation to men.
    Fashion is the most obvious outward display to men of a woman's
    level of subjugation.  That's why there's always such a big brouha
    over what women are wearing - because women's clothes mean so much 
    more to men than mere protection for them from the elements.
    
    Go back and read again the notes talking about school girls HAVING
    to remove any pants they may have worn to keep reasonably warm during
    the trip to school.  I remember WE had to take them off immediately!!
    Why?? 

    Speaking as a person who has always found men's fashion much more
    sensible than women's, on the whole, I find my self somewhat
    surprised to be saying:
    
    You can *keep* the Sporran! :-)
    
    --DE
    

    A major reason that women carry purses as opposed to backpacks is the
    reaction we get from shop owners.  They want you to leave the %$#@
    thing outside.  I am not going to leave everything that is important to
    me on a daily basis (phone numbers, keys, money, charge cards, check
    book, "feminine hygene" products, etc.) sitting on the sidewalk while I
    shop.  The reason for this is the liklihood that something from the
    store will end up in the backpack without being paid for. Still, they
    will allow a woman to walk in with a suitcase sized purse and not
    object. 
    
    Elizabeth

    in highschool, we had to wear (short) kilts for gym (i think they've
    since changed the gym uniform). they were comfortable in that we could
    move in an unrestricted way, but they'd flounce up and down. as a
    result, we had to wear color-coordinated underpant-like garments so
    that no one could see our _real_ underpants. good grief! they do look
    nice for normal wear, though. 

    I really enjoy Scottish dancing, and I'm quite certain that when
    I've seen kilted male dancers they had on something like black
    underpants.  The kilts fly around quite a bit while dancing on the
    stage, and I wouldn't think it would be very comfortable.
    
    Maggie, you're Scottish, do you know?
                                                             

    I have had an idea for a backpack for a while now which I wish someone
    would manufacture.
    
    It has 2 compartments.  One is only accessible from the part of
    the pack the faces in towards your back.  You can't get at it unless
    you take the pack off.  The second is accessible from the top.
    When both zippers are closed, they come right together at the side
    and could easily be clipped or locked together in some way.
    
    If such packs were popular, shopkeepers could keep clips which they
    could put on and only they could take off (sort of like the white
    plastic things in clothes).  This would allow the user the choice
    of bringing the pack into the store, yet having it secured.
    
    

        Re kilts,
        
        The  traditional men's kilt has triple  pleating  and  so  will
        swing freely, but normally the sheer weight  of  the wool keeps
        it at a modest level.  For dancing,  black  bikini-type  briefs
        are  normally  worn,  for  other  occasions,  it's  up  to  the
        wearer....
        
        Legend  has  it  that when the wild Haggis looks out on 'Haggis
        Day',  if  he  doesn't  see  his shadow it's time to remove the
        winter woolies under the kilt!
        
        Andy.
        

    
    	I ride bicycles a lot, and so I use a small backpack quite
    often.   I rarely have any problem taking it into a store.   I
    can only recall twice being asked not to bring in a backpack,
    and in both cases I informed the store clerk that I would *never*
    come back.   I think it's discrimination to allow purses, but
    not backpacks.
    
    	I always thought high heels were stupid.  I very much believe
    that people should dress for comfort, and for the weather.   (consider
    that whatever you are wearing in your car, may be what you will
    have to be walking in, if the car fails!)    
    
    	I am generally oblivious to fashion.   Also I can't imagine 
    why people would ever want to shave anywhere on their bodies.   
    Fashion is one of the tools of conformity, which should be resisted.   
    I will not take any job that requires a dress code, and would not allow
    any dress code to be imposed on my children.  (though I don't actually
    have any children, or even a wife, yet.)
        
	Alan.  (who hasn't shaved since Christmas 1971.)

    Well there is one reason to wear at least low heels...that is
    if you are a very short person :-) and resent feeling child
    sized around other adults.

    
    	Well, I suppose there may be a few good reasons for heels.   
    A woman I know seems to *like* them high, although I just think 
    she's *used* to them.
    
    	For myself, shoe *comfort* is of *maximum* importance.   I
    almost always wear moccasins.   (even have gortex lined mocs for the
    winter.)
    
    	Alan.

    	I am not a heel fan for the very reasons so astutely pointed
    	out several notes back regarding the mall runner.  If I need
    	to run I want to be able to RUN!!!  If my car breaks down or
    	someone asks me to go for a walk at lunch I want to be able
    	to walk with comfort and ease.
    
	In my eyes there are few things less attractive than a woman 
    	whose legs are wobbling because the spikes she's standing on 
    	are about as sturdy as a straightpin.
    
    	And just for the record, not all women (namely me) carry a
    	purse.  Although it's only during the winter, when I can
    	fit my wallet and lip-balm in a coat pocket, that I'm able
    	to get away with this!
    
    						Carla
    

    If a woman needs to run all she needs to do is kick off her heels!

    re: backpacks
    
    I carry one all of the time. Have been doing so for about 10 years.
    I started doing it mostly as something to carry around my "have"
    and "want" lists when I went book hunting (if you had a book
    collection the size of mine, you'd want to carry around lists,
    too). The standard contents are: various pens, small notepad,
    mini-flashlight, pocket-knife, spare glasses (when I'm wearing
    my contacts), contacts carrying case, eye drops, sunglasses,
    check-book, telephone/address list, reading matter. When I go
    shopping, it's also a handy place to put my (smaller) purchases.
    
    Occasionally, I have to "check" my pack in stores, and don't mind
    doing so, since I carry my wallet in my pants pocket, though I
    always take my checkbook out before checking the pack.
    
    When flying, I usually have my pack and a flight-bag as carry-on
    luggage. These days, the regulations allow for two pieces of
    carry-on luggage, but it used to be only one. Once (and only once),
    a flight attendant told me I couldn't have two pieces of carry-on
    luggage. I just pointed at my pack and said, "This is my equivalent
    to a pocketbook. Do you count pocketbooks as carry-on luggage?"
    The attendant didn't give me any more grief about it.
    
    re:.48
    
    "Acessorize"???? Bonnie, you should be ashamed of yourself!
    
    re:.63
    
    "If a woman needs to run all she needs to do is kick off her heels!"
    
    And if she has to run on cobblestones? Ouch!
    
    --- jerry

    re.63 >kicking off her heels
    
    Unfortunately, the places you're most likely to *have* to run are
    the places where your feet will need maximum protection. Picture
    running down an alleyway to escape a mugger/rapist. Now picture
    doing it barefoot. Broken bottles, rusty scrap, etc...

    When discussing footwear and whether women hobble themselves by
    wearing shoes with heels, we should keep in mind that there is a
    wide range of footgear in between moccasins and 6-inch spikes, and
    not all of it is cumbersome.
    
    Like Bonnie R., I wear heels because I'm not very tall, and it's a fact
    in this society that people in general respect you more the taller you
    are.  Most elections are won by the taller candidate; presentations are
    given more credibility when the presenter is tall than when he or she
    is short.  This holds true no matter what the gender of the audience or
    the presenter. 
    
    So I generally wear the tallest heels I can that don't hamper mobility
    -- about two inches.  And almost always boots, because they offer far
    more support than your basic woman's pumps.  Boots are the basic
    footgear of both sexes over most of the west, but I find myself an
    anomaly here in New England . . . 
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    If a store wants you to check your bag or pack and you don't want
    to, why not just insist it's your purse, and pull out a fistful
    of embarassingly personal items to prove it?
    
    Okay, Bonnie, name your bootmaker.  I've been distressed for years
    when I found out Dingo had discontinued my favorites...Of course,
    for me, they've got to be wide enough and pull-on.

RE: .57

They do make packs like that...

RE: running in barefeet...

I remember running around all summer in barefeet, even playing baseball,
kickball, and yes foot ball in barefeet...  you do have to watch where you put
your feet, but otherwise you get used to it.  I admire the tenacity of people
who go dancing in bare feet, but I can't hack the unpadded shock on my feet of
that anymore... 

Nowadays I wear plain black tall, square toe, square heel, cowboy boots most of
the time, sneakers part of the summer.  My dress shoes are the boots.  You would
not believe how difficult it is for a *man* to find a functional pair of boots! 

My latest pair were bought at the Frye Factory Outlet store in Marlboro for the
merely outrageous price of 80$ instead of the incredulous 160$.  However, I
found the workmanship and durability not significantly better then the 40$ KMart
boots which I stained black myself.

Jim. 

    Does anyone know *why* backpacks are verboten in stores? Seems to
    me you could steal stuff with your handbang just as (if not *more*)
    easily?! I have never been asked to leave my backpack outside, but
    given all the experiences noted here, it probably won't be long...
    
    and I'd like to have a comeback to the store-person if it *does*
    happen.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .67 --
    
    Would you believe Thom McAn? 
    
    Although my present pair was bought at an end-of-season sale at
    a high-fashion shoe store in a local mall -- seems that nobody wanted
    them because they're too chunky.  

    re: .69 --
    
    The only time I was ever asked to check my backpack, I was told
    it wasn't for theft but because so many people don't watch where
    they're going and snag things off the racks with the pack.  And
    since there were a lot of breakable things in the store . . .
    
    --bonnie

    RE: backpax taking up room in stores
    
    I *wondered* if that was the reason. God forbid anyone try that
    on me - especially if there's an infant in one of those back-pack
    carriers in the store! I've almost had my eye knocked out by one of
    those (more than once)!
    
    And my backpack doesn't *drool*, either. Yuk.
    
                                      
    --DE
    

    in re several earlier...
    
    I'd rather get cut feet than try and run in heels!
    
    and re Jerry, how else would you describe the mismatch of
    a back pack with a business suit or dressy dress :-) !
    
    Bonnie

Well Bonnie...

You could always get a "fannie" pack, and pretend it's a bustle... :-)

At least it would be functional.... :-)

Jim.

    re:.69
    
    "Does anyone know *why* backpacks are verboten in stores? Seems
    to me you could steal stuff with your handbag just as (if not
    *more*) easily?!"
    
    Common sense has little to do with it. It only matters what is
    perceived by the people making the rules. Women and handbags
    go together like eggs and bacon, death and taxes, and politics
    and corruption. But backpacks aren't "normal", so they get
    treated differently.
    
    In a similar vein, I've always wondered why people (in general)
    would be embarrassed about being seen in their underwear by
    someone else, when said underwear actually covers as much, if not
    more, of the body than the swimsuits they are likely to be wearing
    at the beach. The fact that it's *underwear* instills a certain
    attitude that defies logic.
    
    --- jerry

    re backpacks:
    
    I recently went shopping with my wife: we went to the local branch of
    a nationwide chain store. I was wearing cowboy boots and stetson together
    with a a heavy waistcoat (the mutlipocketed type of thing hunters wear)
    and had on my normal outdoor belt (carrying a heavy survival knife on
    the left hip and a five cell flashlight on the right hip). I was carrying
    a LARGE shoulder bag (it has done duty as a fishing creel and a gun
    case, as well as a camera bag (its original design purpose) and brief
    case. I regularly use it as a weekend case on business trips.
    
    My wife was "normally" dressed and carrying a shopping bag much smaller
    than my case.
    
    We were approached by a member of the shops staff and my wife was asked
    to leave her bag at the service desk. Nothing whatsoever was said to
    me about my case.
    
    I placed my wife's case in mine and closed it. We then walked around
    the store. After paying for our measly purchases I removed my wife's
    bag from mine and placed our purchases in the (now empty) bages. We
    left.
    
    Is it me or is there something skewed in this scenario?
    
    /. Ian .\

Re < Note 694.75 by MONSTR::PHILPOTT_DW "The Colonel" >



>    Is it me or is there something skewed in this scenario?

Maybe they thought you were Rambo. :-)

/mike

    Don't forget (with summer coming) bathing suits.  How many have
    you seen that are comfortable to actually move around in.  They
    seem to either "ride up" in the wrong places or not stay put in
    the right places.  (And they are soooooo expensive too!)

    Two suggestions:
    
    1.  My daughter has very muscular thighs and shoulders, so conventional
        fashion bathing suits don't fit her very well.  She always shops
        at sporting goods stores for racing suits.  The really serious
        racing suits are practically transparent when wet, but most
        sporting goods stores also carry training suits, which look nice
        and stay put in all important places.  They usually have t-strap
        backs.
    
    2.  I sunburn easily and badly, especially on my shoulders and back.
        Even using factor-15 sunblock, if I want to stay out for more 
        than an hour I have to be covered up.  A couple of years ago I 
        solved this problem by buying an aerobics leotard -- short sleeves 
        and a reasonable neck, about a quarter of the price of a fashion 
        bathing suit, and very comfortable to move in. 
    
        I didn't much care what it looked like, but I got a number of 
        compliments about how nice it looked, and some of them were from 
        obviously-impressed men!  
    
        The only drawback is that dance or aerobics leotards are made
        of a different material that doesn't hold up too well under
        salt spray or chlorine.  Not that a lot of high-fashion stuff
        is exactly sturdy . . .
    
    --bonnie

    re:.77
    
    "(And they are soooooo expensive too!)"
    
    With swimsuits, the rule seems to be: "The less there is, the
    more it costs." What's wrong with this picture?
    
    re:.78
    
    "Not that a lot of high-fashion stuff is exactly sturdy . . ."
    
    It doesn't have to be sturdy. You're supposed to buy a new one
    every year anyways.
    
    Besides, aren't swimsuits only for parading around in at the beach
    to get the lifeguards horny? You mean people actually use them for
    *swimming*? The mind boggles.
    
    --- jerry

I've never understood women who go to the beach or boating wearing a swimsuit,
and make a big fuss if they happen to get wet.

Jim.

    re: .80,
    
    Jim, it's because they bought one of those $80 scraps of quick-fade
    Lycra on the rack, and every time water gets splashed on it, it
    shortens the suit's life by another week!
    
    --bonnie

re: .43
>    Letty Cotton Pogrebin's book (of which I cant' rememebr the name)
>    does a real number on how little girl's (mostly dress-up) clothes
>    encourage dependence and little boys' clothes encourage INdependence.

    Not only that, but they're silly -- how come little girls' dresses are
    always so short that the dresses barely cover their behinds? That's
    certainly starting them off on the wrong foot.

    Yes, indeed silly and frivolous!  In other words not serious - right?
    
    Short skirts on little girls also do not protect bare knees from
    cuts the way jeans do.
    
    Sometimes it can be helpful to understand an issue if one looks
    at it from a different perspective.  Can you imagine how differently
    a boy would cope with each day if he were wearing "dresses always
    so short that the dresses barely cover their behinds?"
    
    Just how independent could a grown man feel if he were wearing a
    mini skirt and 5" high heeled shoes.  If it were necessary for him
    to run from a mugger through the dark streets of a city would he
    choose to take off those shoes and run or stay and fight?  Just
    how does ones clothing modify ones attitude?  Is it possible for
    a man to imagine this perspective?
    
    Women have the alternative of wearing slacks and therefore can see
    both perspectives.  Once when going down a flight of stairs at work
    I fell - those darn heels!  Sure I had a few bruises but it was
    more uncomfortable to be upside down in a skirt in front of those
    people at work!
    
    Fashion is dangerous in two ways - physically AND psychologically!

    When a bunch of us were in the eighteenth century, we decided
    that the term "oops!" derived from "hoop skirts".  This was agreed
    to after the third woman had swept an object off a low table
    onto the floor as she manuveured around it.
    
    							Ann B.

    LEE NAILS is now putting out fake nails for young girls (the ones
    in the ad look like Jr. HI. age)
    
    Sheesh.
    
    --DE
    
    

    FWIW: I am wearing a suit today.  Yes, with 2" heels and stockings.
    
    I spent much of the day at one of my scopes, trying to get some
    data.  Lo and behold, I cannot sit comfortably on my favorite chair
    (slip off because of the slippery skirt and slip).  I cannot
    comfortably reach the focus knob at the back of the machine -- I
    used to just tip forward, but now I have to physically remove myself
    from my seat because I can't reach.  I can no longer wheel around
    on the blasted chair because the shoes do not grip the floor and
    provide the amount of traction needed.
    
    I removed the jacket (which fits me quite well) and undid the sleeve
    opening to give my arms a bit more movement.  Removing the shoes
    would do no good without also removing the slippery stockings --
    working without shoes is also a safety hazard.
    
    While some of the copious commentary about my mode of dress was
    welcome, the "business suit" does ZERO to enhance my capability
    to do my work, and DOES effectively reduce my productivity in the
    lab.
    
    Give me pants for work, any day.
    
    Lee
    TWIMC: anyone trying to reach me on GCANYN may continue to have
    trouble.  NRLABS is our new cluster name and I am told I can reliably
    be reached there.

    Re: .87
    
    I'm constantly aware of my clothes when I dress like that (which
    is why I only do it about once a year now, to keep my legal rights
    :-)).  Nylons can run, a skirt gets twisted, a blouse needs to be
    tucked in, I can't put my feet up, ack!  what a pain!  My productivity
    goes down at least 20 percent.
    
    signed,
    
    staying with my jeans unless they bring back Scarlett O'Hara dresses.
    (Now, that's a dress!)
     

    I have one suit. Technically it fits well, but is a pain to move
    around in, mostly because the skirt isn't very wide at the bottom
    (although it does have a small kick-pleat).  I vowed that the next
    suit I get will be a jacket and trousers, so I can skip the hose
    and silly shoes routine and be comfortable.  
    
    Then it struck me, are there any (mass-produced) suits for women
    which don't have skirts?  I don't recall seeing any.  Would I have
    to go to the Men's department to get a suit with trousers?  Come
    to think of it, women's suits don't have vests, and I love vests,
    maybe I will have to resort to the Men's department...
    
    			Barbara b.

    Sure there are - look for "pantsuits".  The only problem is that
    most of them are poorly made polyester.  You can get a nice wool
    blazer with matching slacks, though - of course, that only solves
    half the problem: you don't have to wear hose or heels, but you
    do still have to get it drycleaned!
    
    I don't actually have any wool slacks; if I have to dress up that
    much (necessitating an extra pair of errands to get the dress-up
    clothing drycleaned - what a nuisance), I end up wearing a suit
    with a skirt - and I always get a pleated or A-line skirt; I have
    big hips anyhow, and I prefer clothing that I can walk in, and that
    doesn't ride up to absurb levels when I am seated.

    Re: vests
    
    I have a couple of suits moldering away in the back of my closet;
     they both came with vests.
    

    
    I see the fashion designers responding to an expressed need rather
    than dictating fashion.  Maggie touched on the reason in .35.  The
    women who follow the designers fashions are doing so to win the
    competition with other women for men's attention.
    
    There seem to be two paths to the good life in this culture.  You
    can either go out and work and earn it or you can pair off with
    someone else who is earning it.  If you are a woman who does not
    have the skills or talent to compete with men for the well paying
    jobs or if you find the extra burden of sexism on the job preventing
    your success, you might chose instead to compete with other women
    in the competition to catch one of the successful men.  The fashion
    designers are more than willing to provide the fashion that will
    help you catch the eye of the man that you want to be noticed by.
    It's not so much what the men want to see as it is what will catch
    their eye.
    
    Re: .49 fashion and subjugation
    
    I agree with Sandy (imagine that!), woman's clothing is impractical
    by design.  The message woman puts off is "I won't compete with
    you" or "I will be dependent on you" when she wears one of these
    impractical outfits.  The men are told that their role is to
    be the provider, to be in control.  A man who is not a complete
    success competing with other men does not also want to compete
    for control at home too.  I don't want to sound like I support the
    system as it stands but I can understand why it operates that way.
    
    If there is a growth in fashion consciousness among women, does it
    mean that these women have given up on finding success for themselves
    and have decided to go back and play the old game?  I hope that
    it is only a slight correction where slightly more women are choosing
    between the new and the old options instead of the single option
    of make-it-on-your-own required to be politically correct.
    
    					MJC O->

re: .92
>    I see the fashion designers responding to an expressed need rather
>    than dictating fashion.  

    My first reaction to that is "bullshit!", but I've never sworn here
    before, so I'll try to be more civil than that. It may be that what
    designers design and what wearers wear follow one another in a cycle,
    in which case we'll never decide which one causes the problem.

    Even if women are "expressing a need" to be dependent, it's a bogus
    need, one that's been foisted on them by society (perhaps by other
    women, as pointed out elsewhere, but that doesn't make it right).
    Because it's not a valid need, I discount it, and blame the designers.
    Yeah, that may be a subjective interpretation, but there aren't any
    facts here anyway.

    A friend of mine is a graphic designer. He said that design is applied
    art, as engineering is applied science. As such, it needn't answer to
    anyone, except the market. While it may be that no one asked for
    certain fashions, we're all subject to peer pressure. When all there is
    is X, everyone wants X, especially people who haven't sorted out what
    they really want yet. That means that if all the designers are in
    league with each other (explicitly or implicitly), they can force us to
    want what they produce.

    I agree with your analysis of the "two paths to the good life in this
    culture", but I don't agree with your interpretation of who's telling
    whom what clothing should be. I can't see anyone asking for some of the
    crap that I've seen advertised, but then I wouldn't have even guessed
    that it'd be designed, either.

    Time to go to a solid waste meeting in Maynard. Somehow, it seems
    fitting after flaming about fashion, which I like even less than a mound
    of non-degradable, ozone-destroying styrofoam plates.

    					-- hs

    Re: .93
    
    > It may be that what designers design and what wearers wear follow one
    > another in a cycle, in which case we'll never decide which one causes
    > the problem. 
    
    There is a little bit of a chicken-egg problem here.  My guess would
    be that some time in the distant past a woman or her parents retained
    and artist to help provide a clothing design that help the woman
    compete against a rival.
    
    > Even if women are "expressing a need" to be dependent,...
    
    I don't think woman have a need to be dependent, I think that with
    the obstacles to being independent, many women don't really get
    a choice.
    
    > it's a bogus need, one that's been foisted on them by society... 
    
    Agreed.
    
    > Because it's not a valid need, I discount it, and blame the
    > designers.
    
    That's just scape-goating the designers.  I think of it more in
    terms of an arms race.   If you are unwilling to stand on three
    inch heals you will lose out even if you are willing to spread
    gunk on your lips and shave your legs.  Meanwhile another woman
    is out at the fashion shows looking for the next escalation that
    will allow her to jump ahead of the pack.  It's just like the
    A-bomb in world war II or deadly gas in World War I.  I don't
    think the designers of these things really likes the weapons themselves
    but they do hate them less than they hate losing.

    > That means that if all the designers are in league with each other
    > (explicitly or implicitly), they can force us to want what they
    > produce.
    
    I both agree and disagree with this statement.  If designers want to
    make a radical change it is only possible if other designers follow
    along.  On the other hand it has been shown that skirt lengths follow a
    pattern that coincides with the pattern of wars and economic
    conditions.  This would tend to say that the designers or the buyers
    are following some other cues. 
                                        
    > I can't see anyone asking for some of the crap that I've seen
    > advertised, ...
    
    I can't either but it does start to make sense if you have an arms
    race type of mentality.
    
    						MJC O->

    MJC,
    
    I think it's really sweet the way you think that there are never
    any negative motives on the part of certain men vis a vis women.
    In this case, you think it is one woman or another who started
    a fashion.
    
    "Fashion" is a method of creating variations on a theme of what
    is "acceptable".  Think of the acceptable as being "custom", and
    realize that many customs are backed by laws.
    
    For example, Judaism has several laws which dictate how a woman
    shall dress.  (This includes such things as whether or not a woman's
    legs should be hobbled together on the Sabbath.  (This is a (I gather)
    safety measure to keep her from taking "long harmful steps".)) 
    There have been sumptuary laws dictating the quality of clothes
    that commoners could wear.  There has even been -- to give a really
    frivolous example -- a tax on sombreros by diameter of brim.
    
    Too many times women have worn clothes whose *basic*, devoid-of-style
    form was defined by men, who even wrote laws to enforce their ideas
    of what women should be limited to wearing.
    
    Surely you have seen pictures from the 1910s to 1920s that show
    policemen arresting women who were wearing those bathing costumes
    with little skirts and the pants that came only to the knee?  Those
    arrests were for indecent exposure.

    You might even keep in mind the fact that one of the reasons that
    Joan of Arc was burned at the stake was that she wore men's clothing.
    
    							Ann B.

    > I think it's really sweet the way you think that there are never
    > any negative motives on the part of certain men vis a vis women.
    
    I get the feeling that sweet is supposed to be understood as ni�ve
    but I will let it pass.  I would not say never but I may tend to
    use more benefit_of_the_the_doubt.
    
    > Too many times women have worn clothes whose *basic*, devoid-of-style
    > form was defined by men, who even wrote laws to enforce their ideas of
    > what women should be limited to wearing. 
    
    Certainly men have made attempts to directly control woman's fashion
    in this manner.  I can understand (though not support) the reasons
    why a man might do something like this (A man does not want "his"
    woman trying to catch another man's eye).
    
    I think this kind of fashion control is a world apart from the
    fashion dictates of the designers.  They are almost opposing forces.
    I maintain that in the high fashion world of high heals and shaving
    legs and such, that peer pressure is the controlling factor much more
    than with whims of the designers.  Notice in the earlier notes in
    this topic that the people who did not follow the fashion are also
    the people who are most immune to the peer presser to do so.
    
    					MJC O->

    My understanding is that the legal position against Joan d'Arc was
    only that she wore men's clothing, which was against the law at
    the time.  She didn't wear it to attract anyone, and she resumed
    wearing men's clothing in prison because the ordered switch to women's
    clothing was followed by a rape attempt.
    
    I get most of my basis for the above from Dworkin's _Intercourse_
    (marvellous book!).
    
    In this case, men did try and succeed in controlling her clothing.
    She was put to death.  Probably more because she belonged to no
    man, but legally, because of how she dressed.
    
    In the later 19th century, there was a movement for "rational"
    clothing.  It described a style of clothing of women, the most
    interesting part of which was divided skirts, or a type of turkish
    pants.  (Elizabeth Peters has her character Amelia Peabody running
    around in pyramids in these outfits, I believe, although the dates
    seem a bit off.)  Yes, these clothes were much more comfortable
    and provided greater ease of movement _in_the_abstract_; in practice,
    however, as Dale Spencer describes in _Women_of_Ideas_, the wearers
    were subject to taunts and jeers from males of all ages, especially
    boys who would follow and sing insulting ditties.  ("Peabody" would
    simply wack them with her umbrella, I imagine, but she's fictional.)
    
    Most of us in this notesfile are subject to some sort of pressure
    that from fashion trends and not from peers.  I can't wear the shoes
    I want to wear because they're no longer made, for example.  Unless
    you stick to levis and flannel shirts or carefully maintain your
    patterns and sew at home, you're going to be hit with
    the current fashionable cuts (and colors).  Until you've experienced
    something such as needing a skirt and being unable to buy anything
    longer than 18 inches, I suggest you may have trouble envisioning
    the problems some of the rest of us have had.  This isn't exactly
    peer pressure, or if it is, it's had a long, convoluted trip through
    Marketing.

    > My understanding is that the legal position against Joan d'Arc was
    > only that she wore men's clothing, which was against the law at
    > the time.. She was put to death.  Probably more because she belonged
    > to no man, but legally, because of how she dressed.
    
    From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary pp. 1105
    
    martyr, n
    	1. a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than to give
    	   up his faith or his principles; a person tortured or killed
    	   because of his beliefs.
    
    So, if I understand your argument, you are invoking the martyrdom
    of Joan of Arc in 1431 AD to support the idea that men control
    what women wear.  Are all of my arguments going to be dismissed
    now unless I answer for burning of Joan of Arc?
    
    Basically the invocation of a martyr is supposed to prove two things:
    
    1. Someone believed in the ideal that you stand for so strongly
       that they were willing to die for it.
    2. The "enemy" is truly against you because they are willing to
       kill the martyr just for holding to the ideal.
    
    Martyrdom can be used to manipulate people in very powerful ways.
    "Look you, she was willing to die for this cause.  How can you
    know that and still go on shaving your legs?"  I don't trust
    arguments based on martyrdom because it is just too easy to
    coerce people using them.  If your ideal is really good and
    true you should not need to use martyrdom to support it.
    
    It's very hard to read this kind of argument and still go on
    believing that there aren't at least a few people here toting
    a party line.

    > I can't wear the shoes I want to wear because they're no longer made,
    > for example.
    
    I'll agree that lack of demand can create a shortage of the styles
    that you like best.  I don't think that that translates into the
    idea that designers, store buyers etc can create demand in the majority
    of women by changing the fashions.  I think that a store that serves
    the mainstream will fail if they continue to sell the same comfortable
    clothing year after year.  I believe that if all of the fashion
    designers dropped over dead tomorrow that many women would still
    strive to find some way to change their look.  Do you really find
    that this line of argument is completely lacking in merit?
    
    					MJC O->

    Um Excuse me but, I do not believe that there are such laws here
    now.  So in a line, wear what you want to.  If you do not like it
    dont wear it.  If you want to wear "mens" clothing the go ahead.
    ANd if you want to wear "womens" clothing, then go ahead.
    
    I wonder what would happen if you (whoever female) wore a three
    piece "power suit" just how many people would look at her in an
    odd if not sickly manner. Nothing.  BUT, if a man wore a skirt,jacket
    "power suit"  what would happen..... Just curious...

    (.95)
    
>    Too many times women have worn clothes whose *basic*, devoid-of-style
>    form was defined by men, who even wrote laws to enforce their ideas
>    of what women should be limited to wearing.
>    
>    Surely you have seen pictures from the 1910s to 1920s that show
>    policemen arresting women who were wearing those bathing costumes
>    with little skirts and the pants that came only to the knee?  Those
>    arrests were for indecent exposure.
    
    The premise that this specifically reflects men controlling women is
    weakened somewhat when you realize that at the same time, men were
    being arrested for bathing with the their chests uncovered. (As for
    men writing the laws, the state of New York now has a law forbidding
    female toplessness.  The legislator who introduced it was a woman.) 
    
    The tyranny of clothing is not confined to one sex (though I would
    be the last to deny that women have been more severely and
    inequitably affected by it). 
    
    	-Neil                   

    re .98
    
    Surely you don't believe that everything I say is only to you.
    
    I was elaborating on something Ann had said, but hardly dismissing
    anyone's information.  [Do you conduct all your conversations in
    the manner you indicate?]
    
    Joan d'Arc was prosecuted for her dress, but this is not why many
    intelligent men wished her dead.  She wasn't martyred for her choice
    of clothing, she was executed because she was a danger to the
    status quo.  I have not cited her to convince anyone to change their
    clothes (although, I recommend it be done, peridically, for health
    reasons)(otherwise your coworkers will throw you in the river, and
    it's too cold for swimming)(now, out of doors, in New England);
    it was brought up as an example of someone who did suffer for her
    choices.  (Well, "choice" is a bad word, because she was only doing
    as she believed she'd been told.)

    re: an earlier request for business suits with pants --
    
    The Anne Klein II line includes a number of suits with pants or looser,
    more comfortable skirts -- the colors were nice and the prices
    surprisingly reasonable.  They were mix and match -- you could choose a
    paisley silk blouse, a camel coat, a cocoa vest, and a skirt that
    mingled camel, cocoa, and maroon, for example.  I saw them at the
    Nashua Mall, at a store called the Burlington Coat Factory, but I'm
    sure many other women's clothing stores handle the same line. 
    
    --bonnie

    I have found the only way to get around fashion (ie. express yourself,
    but still follow the "rules" for business atire) is to sew your
    own. Then you can adjust to any taste you have, and it really isn't
    that hard. I have just recently joined the "DEC Family" and came
    form an office environemnt where almost anything wnet as foa as
    clothes were concerned. I dressed how I felt like it that day. Now
    I am in Sales (Support) and have to dress in "Proper business attire".
    I agree that "fashion designers" know nothing about what women like
    and want, so I will go back to the more expressive and CHEAPER mode
    of sewing. I also LOVE vests, and plan to wear many of them. I have
    3 3-peice suits (From by-gone days) and have renewed every one of
    them. 
    	By sewing you can adapt to your own tasts, while still remianing
    comfortable, and putting food on the table.  Good luck figuring
    out why females seem to follow fashion. I'm sure Freud would have
    some ineresting comments on that one......

    Would you happen to have a vest pattern that permits shaping at
    the shoulder?  I'd like something that I didn't draw myself before
    I cut into this piece of Ultrasuede (TM?).
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .104
    
    You can experiment with a trial run in cheap muslin.
    

    Well, my favorite NY Times Magazine Supplement just came out -- the
    "Fashions of the Times" was in the paper yesterday. I don't know how
    representative the ads in there are, but there sure is some weird stuff
    in there.  

    My favorite is on page 81 (for those of you following along in your
    program). It features a short black skirt and black jacket with lots of
    large white buttons, and ruffles. With the little pointy hat (like a
    dunce cap in pink with black lace and a visor), the only thing it
    reminds me of is a clown's outfit. Except that it costs over $2000. 

    Of course, that could be what everyone's wearing next week...

    Actually, that sounds like something out of the late thirties/
    early forties.  Was her hair in curly ringlets gathered up on the
    top of her head?
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  The word I couldn't remember was "dart".  Muslin won't work,
    since it hangs wrong; I was thinking of using felt.

    The trouble with sewing your own clothes, as I used to do when I
    was in school, is that it takes up a LOT of time.  I used to be
    able to make up a dress in about a day (assuming I already had the
    pattern and the material, zipper, thread, buttons, etc.), but something
    like a tailored suit would take a couple of whole weekends to do
    especially if it is fully lined (if you're going to do it yourself,
    you might as well do it right, right?).  And hiring a tailor to
    make them is pretty much only for the wealthy - I did that exactly
    once, and discovered that the woman I hired did a worse job than
    I would have done myself; I had to redo the hem and part of the
    lining.   I guess I have gotten myself involved in too many things...
    
    I don't sew anymore except for costumes, mostly because I don't
    have time.  Anyhow, the sewing machine hasn't worked right (bobbin
    tension will not stay adjusted; I think I need a new spring) since
    I made us teddy bear costumes a couple of years ago - that fake
    fur is tough to work with!!

    In the business news Friday morning it was stated that some women's
    clothing manufacturers as well as retail outlets were reporting
    low earnings for the past quarter one of which was The Limited.
    
    The analyst attributed the loss to general dissatisfaction with
    the current styles and the refusal of women to purchase the current
    fashions.
    
    

    I've always found "The Limited" to be just that -
    limited...particularly in size.  I'm not sure I've ever seen anything
    over a size 9 on their racks...and they're pricey, too.  
    
    When will many fashionable stores realize that 1/3 of all American
    women are size 16 or over?  (statistic found in several weight loss
    books)
    
    -Jody
    

    It seems that I decided to 'live dangerously' last Friday.
    
    My shoes had lost the tips on their heels and since I only own
    one pair of dress shoes I had to buy another pair so I could
    get the first pair mended. I stopped off at Sears and asked for
    a nice pair of work pumps. It wasn't until I got them home that
    I realized that I had bought three inch heels...the highest I have
    worn in many years. I find the addditional inch of height is
    quite noticeable.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne

    Does anyone have a copy of this month's MS. Magazine - there is
    a funny cartoon about women's fashions - i'll try to recapture it
    
    
    Three men are walking down the street.  One of the men is expressing
    anger torwards women...
    
    "Some times I feel this great rage, anger and hatred towards women bubble
    up inside of me and I just want to lash out and uh and well um..."
    
    His companion chimes in: "Go into womens fashion design!"
    
    Behind them is an advertisement of fashion and these women in these
    awful looking and uncomfortable fashions.  
                                                                          
    
    Well it was pretty funny in the cartoon...I guess you had to be there. 

    Bonnie -- but were they comfortable for you?
    
    

    Well they were when I tried them on, but they have been very
    strange to walk around in today. I suspect that once the 
    other pair is mended these won't be worn all that much. :-)
    My biggest problem is negotiating the uncarpeted floors.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne

    <re: 113...
    You won't believe it, but I think that is true.  A lot of
    designers are  male and sometimes I wonder if they hate women or
    they just want us to look bad!  Some of their "creations" are
    ridiculous and yet (some) women buy them.  Whew!
    
    -Dotti_who_likes_to_be_comfortable_and_still_look_like_a_woman

1.    Let's not accuse all fashion designers of hating all women just
      because as a matter of taste some of us happen to find some fashions
      ugly! 
    
      I rather like this year's fun fashions -- they're frivolous and
      silly and great for a party.  I wouldn't want to wear them to the
      office, but on the other hand I don't think they were intended for
      wear to the office.  

      And I'm sure that I'm in the minority when I say I like them.
      That's fine; I'm used to being in the minority.
    
2.    Who says that you have to follow fashion?  If fashion designers
      want us to look bad -- something I don't think is true -- then
      we should ignore them.
    
3.    So if you don't like them, don't buy them.  If I like them, I'll
      buy them.  If more people don't like them than like them, they'll
      change. 
    
    --bonnie, who likes to be comfortable but likes to have fun too 

Talked to some women about high heels, I have found a few that would never give
them up.  They like the feeling of superiority that being a couple of inches
taller gives them.  Who does the couple of inches give them an advantage over?
Other women.  So much for it being *all* a male plot. :-}

RE: Joan of Arc

A 17-year-old peasant whose presence and activity changed the course of the
Hundred Years' War between France and England.  In 1429 she appeared at the
borders of the duchy of Lorraine, introduced herself to the Dauphin Charles of
France as hid God-given saviour, guided by divine messengers. Captured by
enemies during a battle, she was sold to the English, turned over to the
Inquisition, tried and burned as a heretic.  She is a heroine of history, she
pursued goals with bravery, loyal to convictions in the face of a treacherous
trial. 

"She is a universal figure who is female, but is neither a queen, not a
courtesan, nor a beauty, nor a mother, nor an artist of one kind or another, nor
untill 1920 when she was canonised, a saint. She eluded the categories in which
women have normally achieved a higher status that gives them immortality.  Joan
is instantly present in the mind's eye; a boyish stance, cropped hair,
medievalised clothes, armour, an air of spiritual exaltation mixed with physical
courage.  She is presented as an Amazon, or a knight of old, or a
personification of virtue, becuase the history of individual women and of
women's roles has been so thin." (Marin Warner 1982,3,4,6,9) 
   
"A virgin warrior who helps men.  One of Christianity's prime rememberances of
Amazon cultures.  Although she is doomed (and women might identify with her on
this ground alone), she is also physically and spiritually bold." (Phyllis
Chesler 1972a,49) 

Her trail has recently been reseen as "part of the War between Christianity and
the Old Religion, or Ritual Witchcraft, an ancient religion of preChristian
origins."  Margaret Murry has gathered historical evidence to show that "Joan's
accusers were aware of her connection with the Ancient religion." (Mary Daly
1973, 147)  She was also attacked for her use of male attire.  She stepped
outside patriarchal boundaries and was killed for it. 

From "A Feminist Dictionary"

From the historical account, I find it hard to imagine that Joan was killed
because of her dress.  Joan was accused of 'witchcraft and consorting with
spirits' by her English enemies, yet the Church has canonized, believing that
she was lead by the spirit of God, yet Christianity is accused of persecuting
Joan as a member of the Old Religion.  I feel sure that the case is merely that
of an enemy using the pretext of equating "hearing voices" with witchcraft.
Only God knows what guidance Joan really had. 

    She was canonized long after her death made her safe.

    Perhaps I've been guilty of some semantic sloppiness in regards
    to Joan d'Arc.  Now I'm home with my library, so let's see...
                                             
    A small time line of some pertinent facts:
    
    May 23, 1430	captured by the Burgundians
    November, 1430	handed over to the Inquisition
    March 1431		interrogated
    			church made 70 charges against her, from horse
			    theft to sorcery
    April 1431		charges reduced to 12; trial procedes
    May 9, 1431		threatened with torture
    May 19, 1431	condemned as a heretic by the University of
			    Paris
    May 24, 1431	threatened with death, she makes her mark on
    			       	a document or recanting prepared for her
    			sentenced to life imprisonment; returned to
    				prison and was dressed in "female" clothing
    May 27, 1431	resumed "male" clothing
    May 30, 1431	burned at the stake
    1456		"rehabilitated by papal decree
    1869		canonization proposed to the Vatican
    1903		designated as Venerable
    1909		beatified
    1920		made Saint Joan
    
                                                                           
    Now, the reason she resumed "male" clothing was that while she was
    imprisoned, male guards, English soldiers were in her cell night and day.
    She was chained, dressed in skirts, and suffered rape or attempted
    rape and severe beatings.  So she resumed her outlawed clothing,
    because she "would rather do penance by dying, than bear any longer
    the agony of imprisonment".  So they burned her until she died,
    exhibited her naked burned body, and then burned her completely. 
    
    Joan claimed to see in her visions St. Margaret and St. Catherine, 
    both Christian virgins martyred at the hands of lustful male 
    heathen rulers.  The church condemned her to death by burning, it was
    not merely some English thing.  And yet, virgins do not make pacts
    with the devil...that is part of the pact.
    
    [Source: Andrea Dworkin, _Intercourse_, Macmillan, 1987, which cites
    numerous other sources.]

    
�    Joan claimed to see in her visions St. Margaret and St. Catherine, 
�    both Christian virgins martyred at the hands of lustful male 
�    heathen rulers.  

       Are we perhaps guilty here of applying 20th century western
       morality to a situation where it doesn't apply? The  Romans
       believed, as a result of religious and moral feelings that it was
       totally wrong to carry out the death penalty on a virgin female.
       They did not take this as a basis for commuting the sentence to
       lifelong hard labour or similar: they simply raped her and then
       killed her. "Lust" is not necesarily the summation or totality of
       rationale in such cases: "pagan" belief imputes a supernatural
       strength to virgins that has to be eliminated before the woman
       can be safely disposed of.

�    The church condemned her to death by burning, it was not merely
�    some English thing.  

       Thank you for that at least. Again it was the norm of the age,
       and not a nationalistic process. It may be true however that the
       English and their allies used the moral attitudes of the time as
       a convenient vehicle to dispose of a nuisance.

�    And yet, virgins do not make pacts with the devil...that is part of
�    the pact.

       This appears to be a total non-sequitor. Making a pact with "the
       devil" is totally seperate from bodily virginity. 

       /. Ian .\

    Ian,
    
    No, she is not applying 20th century morality to Saints Margaret
    and Catherine.  Here is part of a breezy discussion on St. C:
    
    "[She was] the standard young beauty dedicated to virginity,....
    She refused the hand of the emperor in marriage, whereupon he...
    essayed to win her love by having her imprisoned and tortured."
    
    She was a virgin martyr because she refused to marry, or to marry
    a pagan.  What was done to her was what made her a martyr; what
    she willed to do (or not do) was what got her called a virgin.
    See?
    
    The other point that she was trying to make delicately (and which
    you missed because she was being delicate and because you have
    not (I suspect) studied this outr� field) is that -- Gentle Reader,
    an indelicacy is beyond the form feed -- part of a woman making
    
    a pact with the Devil is that she, um, well, she gives
    herself to the Devil sexually.  (This becomes even more bizarre
    in the light of the Christian belief that the Devil's sexual organ
    was (roughly (sorry!)) pinecone-shaped.)  Therefore, a virgin
    could not have previously entered into a pact with the Devil.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann,

       Thank you for the clarification: I was not cognizant of the
       details of the martyrdom of the earlier saints, and was assuming,
       apparently incorrectly, that it directly paralleled the prison
       treatment of the Maid of Orleans.

       To be honest I was trying to suggest that it is inappropriate to
       apply modern morality to the treatment of Joan of Arc, rather
       than Sts. Catherine and Margaret.

       Apologies.

       As for the information about pacts with the Devil, I am (or have
       been) a regular of DEJAVU, and am moderately familar with this and
       other elements of "The Old Religion". 


       As for the physical virgin status and proof of a pact with the
       devil... well In this early part of the middle ages it is
       difficult to determine when we are talking about the Biblical
       Satan, or the God of the Old Religion (also commonly called Satan
       in post Christian times). It is also difficult to know whether an
       act of intercourse between a witch-initiate and the Devil would
       have the visible signs of normal human relationships: at least
       some authorities of the time claimed that the relationship was
       purely spiritual and had no physical signs, some claimed that
       though the act was physical the witch could conceal or repair the
       physical signs in order to protect herself from detection. Others
       claimed that more subtle "witch marks" were the true evidence. 
       In any event it is difficult at this remove in time to
       differentiate between the beliefs and behaviour of the judges at
       her trial, and the authorities at her prison, and the beliefs and
       behaviour of the guards who abused her. Thus the judges may have
       believed that the lack of physical evidence ruled out a pact with
       the Christian Satan, but that by no means proves that the jailors
       would believe that it ruled out a pact with The Ancient One.


       As for Joan of Arc: whilst this may be a rat-trap in the making,
       I have a modest interest in historical matters... She was a
       significant but by no means decisive factor in a very long French
       civil war. Yes... it was a civil war, and references to "the
       British and Burgundians" tend to hide this fact. When the Kings
       of England took the field of battle against "the French" they did
       so as Frenchmen themselves ... and as feudal vassals of the
       French crown. When the King of France died, precipitating the
       war, his son, the Dauphin, clearly had a claim to the throne, but
       it was by no means as clear cut as it might be by todays
       standards. The King of England had married the ex-wife of the
       King of France (and hence acquired Acquitane as well as a good
       claim to the French throne for himself and his heirs). The King
       of England had in fact more feudal land and more vassal serfs
       than the King of France had, and with the lands held by cadet
       branches of his familly a substantial preponderance of force. The
       Maid of Orleans stiffened the resolve of the Dauphin and hence
       effectively started the civil war, which would have been a
       non-event without her.

       However perhaps the following should be considered in this area:

       1) When the war was over "France" had won - the Kings of England
       had lost all their feudal possesions in France except for the
       Channel Islands. However the French economy was in a frightful
       mess and thousands of peasants were starving. It was advantageous
       to have a peasant hero[ine] and Joan of Arc filled the bill
       nicely. 

       2) By the end of the war she had died so long ago that no living
       peasants had direct recollection of the facts. Of such stuff are
       legends born.

       3) History tends to be written by the victors - in this case
       France won, and the story of Joan of Arc is presented with the
       British/Burgundian forces (the losers) as totally black in
       spirit.

       4) "Propaganda" originally referred to the material produced be
       the disinformation unit of the vatican. Historians tend to lessen
       the value they place on Vatican documents from this period that
       support Vatican allies. Bear in mind that the Kings of France
       were, during and after this period, staunch supporters of the
       papacy, whereas England went on to become one of the hotbeds of
       the Protestant Reformation.

       5) What happened to her in prison (assuming that it happened as
       described) is not unusual for prisoners of the time: echoes of
       the Old Religion were much more frequent than today. Old beliefs
       still lingered on. Two possibilities exist to explain her
       treatment in prison. Either the authorities condoned it as "part
       of her punishment" in some sense, or the soldiers, suffering from
       age old superstitions were unwilling to allow a virgin to die and
       go straight to heaven (the old belief) when they as vile sinners
       (their priests undoubtedly told them that frequently enough)
       would be lucky to escape the inferno... Of course it is also
       possible that baser human motives ruled. 

       To be brutal about it the story contains an unexplained
       inconsistancy. Consider "she was kept chained and forced to wear
       female clothes. As a result of this she was sexually harassed by
       soldiers. She was *allowed* to resume male garb" and the
       harassment presumably stopped (!). Is it not strange if the
       authorities were so driven by their overwhelming machismo that
       they allowed her to resume the male clothing she had been tried
       for wearing, How did dressing in male clothing save her? Perhaps
       it should be remembered that extreme public embarassment (the
       stocks, pillory public flogging etc) was a large part of the
       punishments of the time, and strange as it may seem when viewed
       through twentieth century eyes, I feel that it is possible to
       view the prison experience as having been a part of the
       punishment meted out to her.

       /. Ian .\

    Heavens, Ian, "Chabot" is only the name I got from my father; on
    my mother's side there are Barrys, Armstrongs, and Petits, all from
    the other side of the Channel.  If anything, I'm more likely to
    side with the English.   Although we've all been in California for
    awhile.
    
    As to the treatment of Joan in prison: her case is exceptional in
    that her guards were all male and male guards slept in her cell.
    Women were always allowed women guards.  I don't know how she managed
    to dress as a man again, but I can well imagine why it would present
    more of a challenge to a rape than skirts.  This practice of women
    guards was common throughout the Middle Ages, as was burning women
    for all death sentences; men were only burned for witchcraft (and
    they were accused in insignificant numbers compared to women) and
    homosexuality, presumably the most horrible crimes a man could be
    condemned of then.  [Refer to _The_Fourth_Estate_, er I forget the
    author, and it's at home.]   Oops, now that I remember, women were
    either burned or buried alive, and reasons given were that these
    methods preserved their modesty.  (The stripping of Joan's body
    is another extraordinary item then.)  When later some women were
    hanged, they were clothed in very long gowns, to cover them completely,
    again for modesty reasons. 
                              
    So, the punishment meted out to Joan before her death was
    extraordinary.  And I don't care what eon you live in, women don't take
    being raped as commonplace or par.  Women were not routinely raped
    in prison, else why have women guards?  It wasn't just her guards
    who attempted rape: there are accounts that claimed a lord had beaten
    her after a failed attempt.  Again, perhaps propaganda.  However,
    desecration of virgins is generally considered worse than virgins
    dying, so I hardly consider it likely someone did it as a favor.
    (If virgins dying was worse, then neither of Joan's saints would
    have died virgins, no?  They clearly could have been raped, then
    died; but that isn't how the stories go.)
    
    History may be written by the victors, but yet we do have Shakespeare
    for what his histories're worth.  He isn't particularly kind, changing
    the saints into fiends that feed upon her blood and accusing her
    of whoredom. 

       Well I am relying on memory since I don't keep a library at the
       office, and my reference books at home are packed away pending a
       move...

       However, the version of the story I remember from schooldays was
       that Joan was treated as she was because (a) her aberrant behaviour
       (wearing male clothes) had deprived her of the normal concessions
       granted women (b) the authorities were afraid that if she had
       female guards she would "infect" them with similar behaviour
       traits, and (c) because of ancient superstitious beliefs of the
       guards. The presence of guards in her cell is entirely in line
       with a fear that she might escape by summoning up a devil, or
       other form of witchcraft. It is also possible that she was not
       allowed female guards because of fear that they would succomb to
       the wiles of Joan's succubus.

       Equally I wasn't trying to suggest that the guards raped her (or
       the ancient Saints) "as a favor". My understanding is that the
       people believed that a woman (or indeed a man for that matter)
       who died a virgin would go straight to heaven. therefore (a)
       executing them might be revenge but it is hardly punishment, and
       (b) the executioner may very well not go to heaven. Hence the
       ritual rape turns the act of revenge into a punishment (since if
       the woman is indeed guilty of a crime warranting death then
       presumably she is "bad enough" to go to hell), and secondly it
       assures that the prisoner suffers at least as much in the after
       life as the guards and executioner expects to. My personal guess
       is that the authorities put male guards in the cell because they
       feared either an escape attempt by Joan herself using sorcery, or
       a rescue attempt by the Dauphin's forces, and that the rape
       occured because the peasants guarding her were familiar with the
       Old Religion (which most definately had not died out in country
       areas) and working on the "no smoke without fire" principle
       decided to "make absolutely sure" that she didn't get to heaven
       because of her purity. 

       Whilst such treatment is highly unusual it is not totally unkown
       for this or more to occur (The behaviour of England's
       "Witchfinder General" a couple of centuries later is not
       dissimilar in many details).  During the Indian Mutiny (19th
       century) there were cases of [English] women prisoners being
       accused of being witches by their Indian captors and being
       treated every bit as vilely as Joan was (being forced to eat the
       flesh of their children or of parts of their own bodies in order
       to observe the effect in search of signs of devil possesion for
       example). My belief is that vile as these things were, some at
       least of the stories of the mutiny (there are far worse
       "documented" events than those) are British anti-Indian
       propaganda. Equally during WWI there were widespread stories of
       what the German soldiers had supposedly done to female prisoners
       in occupied territory that after the war were found to be quite
       baseless.

       As for the ritual defloration of condemned women in ancient times
       I have seen this described in several histories of Rome, as well
       as in descriptions of several other ancient societies: again my
       ignorance of the two Saints mentioned prevents me from knowing
       whether this practice is relevant (where did the two unfortunate
       Saints meet martyrdom? indeed are we even sure they existed,
       since several ancient saints have been reported recently to be
       fictitious and to have been created as moral examples - St.
       George for example). 

       Shakespeare's "history" is I believe largely the popular
       scuttlebutt of his day surely, and the tales of Joan of Arc
       certainly make for scurrilous (and hence attractive) fare for the
       denizens of the pit

       Please don't think that I am in any way condoning what is said to
       have happened... I do not think it is in any way "acceptable".
       However punishments have not always been acceptable when judged
       by todayes mores. I presume it was the prevalence of some strange
       punishments that led the US Consitution to include protection
       against "cruel and unuasual punishments". 

       /. Ian .\

       PS: the behaviour of English soldiers in France was as foul as
       the treatment of Joan suggests it may have been. Indeed the
       number of unfortunate bastards sired  by English and Welsh
       soldiers who spoke no French was high. Faced by the need to give
       the child a name, many mothers used the only words they'd heard
       the soldiers say and so the name "Goddamme" (various spellings)
       became a not uncommon surname in parts of France.