Conference turris::womannotes-v2

               
    	Parent's "plant the seeds" for their daughter's (and son's)
    future unhappiness, but it's _far more_ than what they allow them
    to wear for clothing. In fact, I've heard that "what you get to
    wear" for clothing can be a tool that a parent can use to invalidate
    a child's true self, via a device called shame. The tried and true
    message "Nice people wouldnt like you if you wore that to school"
    is one of these shaming devices.
    
    	I can understand your concern for the situation where a very
    young girl is perhaps "inappropriately" dressed for her age, and
    the subsequent effect on the boys of her own ager group. Realize
    that more than ever, todays generation is the television generation
    and will_be very impressed with, concerned with, taken with, things
    like "appearance", "presentation", "the wrapping" "the finish",
    the *visual image*, nay dare I say the *virtual image* of a person.
    
    	I'm 32 years old. I remember the TV from the dawn of my
    consciousness. It was as much a part of life as "mommy and daddy"
    was. The difference between reality as portrayed there and "real"
    reality became blurred in time. I am a "visual" person as a direct
    result, I believe. I'm first attracted to *image* and am just beginning
    to consider the other - as a conscious effort. I need not say what
    my *subconscious* sees first, every time.
    
    	I believe the behavior of the 8th graders was well within "normal"
    for that age. For 5th graders? Well, I really cant say...I can say
    that I would be too concerned with the "appearance and dress" factor
    as being "the one" that will eventually ruin the persons life or
    whatever. It has merely become, a fact of life in today's world.
    
    	Of course, you *could* remove the influence of all media, such
    as Records, TV, Magazines, Comics, etc. But, isnt that being a little
    unrealistic, perhaps even in a dysfunctional way?
    
    	Joe Jas   

    I am going to climb out on my fragile limb with my hacksaw and
    give my 2c worth on this issue, because it has been on my mind,
    also.
    
    I am the mother of 2 daughters, with 8 years between their ages.
    The oldest, when growing up, was much more amenable to my suggestions
    as to dress (what *I* considered suitable, etc.) than the youngest
    one was when it came her teen years.  However, I held the lid on
    (youngest one) her more bizarre tastes as much as possible, 
    mainly because I controlled the $$ for clothes.
    
    At no time would I allow them to dress in what I considered age
    inappropriate ways (high heels, pantyhose at 13,) but was beaten
    into submission with short skirts on occasion, although I *never*
    was comfortable.  
    
    I come from the old school of thought that how you dress not only
    makes an impression on others, but says something about 
    you as a person because your dress *does*, in part, reflect your tastes
    not just in clothes but in your attitudes towards yourself.
    
    The young lady who was dressed flashily and was the center of "hands
    on attention" is not a new phenomena.  (Heavens, I remember Doris
    Tooley in my 8th grade!  Wow, was *she* a hot number!  I think she
    got married about 3 times and had about a million kids, but oh,
    you kid, was she gorgeous!!)  But I do believe that young girls
    often behave that way, and dress that way, because they need as
    much attention as possible, and if they can't get the attention
    in the best ways, they will get it some other way.  
    
    The lines between adult dress, behavior and knowledge about
    male/felmale behavior and sexuality, and age---children under late
    teen years---and young adults is closing quite rapidly.  I sometimes
    wonder if many parents even think about how it looks for 13 year
    olds to dress in such a provocative way.  Perhaps they think because
    they *know* the child to be a child, others will react the say way.
     
    How much does TV and movies effect this behavior?   Plus, there
    is no longer the *nice girls don't dress/behave/talk that way* 
    syndrome...  And yes, they see so often on TV/movies behavior
    which says, in effect, *he will respect you in the morning*...
    
    The answer?  *I* sure as heck don't know.  And this was quite a
    ramble, wasn't it?
    
    Marilyn  
    
     
    
    

 Having two teenage step-daughters, as well as a 5 day old daughter, I find 
myself acutely aware of the role of clothing in regards to daughters. My
oldest is fairly conservative. She wears little makeup, but her clothes are
in fashion (ie ugly). The youngest (now middle) is alot more sensual. She wears
way too much makeup (necessitating one or more trips back to the bathroom to
remove some), wears less conservative clothes. She is also somewhat of an
exhibitionist, much to my chagrin.

 Now I  have another daughter, 5 day old K.C. (Katherine Claire). She is
adorable. I sort of wonder what sort of problems we will encounter as she
grows up. It seems that it gets more difficult for the children to grow up
every year- new pressures, etc. I worry for her. I am very eager to teach
her things- how to play ball, how to go fishing etc. She will definitely not
be excluded from doing anything she may want to do because she is a girl.

 It seems that part of the problem with raising your kids is that so many
other parents don't give a sh-t about theirs. They let them out late at night,
leave them for long periods unchaperoned, etc etc etc. Seeing their peers
being allowed free reign makes your kids feel that you don't trust them, that
theyare being picked on etc. It makes them jealous of the comparatively huge
freedoms enjoyed by their friends. It makes life more difficult for the parents
who care.

 The Doctah

    I tend to be a non-conventional dresser, which sometimes gives people
    the wrong impression of me.  My manner of dress is more along the
    lines of what people would consider "punky", but I try to keep that
    and my work image separate, which is no easy feat.
    
    If I had a daughter, I would teach her that to dress unconventionally
    is an expression of individuality, and not to let people judge you
    for it.  If her manner of dress was being considered "seductive"
    or inappropriate for her age, I might have to step in because
    a young girl may not be emotionally mature enough (though many look
    physically mature) to handle the situations that may arise as a
    result.    By dressing older, they may find themselves in situations
    beyond their emotional capabilities.  For every naive young girl,
    there is someone willing to take advantage of them.
    
    Stacie

   > If I had a daughter, I would teach her that to dress unconventionally
   > is an expression of individuality, and not to let people judge you
   > for it.

 Understood. On the other hand (why do they always come in pairs :-), you
make an impression with how you dress on other people. Right or wrong, people
tend to categorize you according to your appearance. If you don't want to
create any  false impressions, you must be careful how you dress (and behave.)
Once people get to know you, your dress matters much less.

 When people go to a bar, there is a definite impression made by the way people
dress. The girl with the sexiest clothes will immediately attract barracudas
and such, and will be expected to be a sexual conquest waiting to happen.
I'm not making any value judgements here at all; I'm just relating my observa-
tions. A sexually enticing woman will be expected to deliver the goods if she
leaves the bar with a guy. On the other hand, a "properly" dressed woman with
high collars and a long skirt (hair in bun) will attract nary a barracuda. She
will attract others who are less concerned with a quickie and more concerned
with companionship. I realize they are generalizations and as such have limited
use, but I think you can understand my point.

 My youngest brother has long hair. He also wears leather jackets and plays
guitar (I sold him mine;-) He has found it difficult to find a job due to
his appearance. The same sort of thing applies to women. People judge you
by your appearance. It takes alot more time to know how you really are. Many
are not willing to put in the time, and so need to find an easy wasy to
discriminate. Appearance fits that bill rather nicely.

 The Doctah

>	I'm not making any value judgements here at all; I'm just relating my
>	observations. A sexually enticing woman will be expected to deliver 
>	the goods if she leaves the bar with a guy. On the other hand, a 
>	"properly" dressed woman with high collars and a long skirt (hair in 
>	bun) will attract nary a barracuda.  She will attract others who are 
>	less concerned with a quickie and more concerned with companionship. 
>	I realize they are generalizations and as such have limited use, but 
>	I think you can understand my point. 


You had to say that didn't you.  I can see the lynching committee
already.........

Victoria

    Re: .5
    
    >The girl with the sexiest clothes will immediately attract barracudas
    >and such, and will be expected to be a sexual conquest waiting
    >to happen.
    
    This was an issue raised in discussions of _The Accused_.  Not to
    say that the expectations are correct or entirely justified, but
    they exist.  Part of it is that a woman who dresses in a provocative
    manner should have some idea of the provocation she's causing. 
    If one wishes to attract, one dresses to attract.  But this is not
    the only reason for dressing "provocatively."  A friend of mine
    in college loved mini-skirts and wore them almost constantly for
    her own pleasure.  Regardless of *why* one wears such things, "no"
    still means "no."

    Re .5, a woman who went into a bar dressed the way you describe
    as "proper" - long skirt, high collar, a *bun*, wouldn't attract
    *any* men in this day and age!  
    
    When I was 20 yrs. old in 1970, all the females my age wore
    mini-skirts every day, even to work.  It was the style.  Even back
    then it didn't mean we were whores and it doesn't now.  (I'm not sure 
    I even believe in the concept of "whores" but I won't get into that now!)

    I believe people have a right to dress the way they please, and
    that everyone has a responsibility to treat everyone else with civility
    and respect, regardless of the way they are dressed.  I also realize
    that mini skirts and that, what people my age would consider to be
    "sexy" clothes, are in for teenage girls.  The girls wear them because
    they see them in Seventeen magazine or on MTV, and they feel good and
    in style, not because they want some creep to hit on them.
    
    So, while you're busy telling your daughter how to dress, maybe
    you can take some time off to explain to any little boys you come
    in contact with that they are supposed to respect *all* women and
    girls and treat them all the same, and not make value judgements
    about who is dressed like a whore and who isn't, and how they should
    or shouldn't be treated.

    
    I happen to be the mother of a teen-age boy, and I have seen this
    phenomenon at work among girls since grade school.  The girls always
    look more 'sophisticated' and 'adult' than the boys of the equivalent
    age.  It makes me uncomfortable to see 5th and 6th graders in high
    heels and make-up.  Outside of the context of school activities,
    where their ages are known, it is far too easy to imagine that they
    will be mistaken for being older, and therefor more mature, than
    they are.
    
    I don't know how to stop it, but my son did a very interesting
    'experiment' this year.  He wanted a punk haircut.  I'm not thrilled
    with the idea, but it's his hair.  He wound up getting a cut that
    was 'modifiable', and I recommended that he observe how he was treated
    when he looked very punk versus when he looked normal_teen.  It
    was quite an eye-opener that he *was* treated differently, even
    by friends who knew him well.  He was also intrigued to notice that
    *he* behaved differently in each mode.  Yes, how we dress does affect
    how we behave.
    
    Perhaps what is needed for some of these kids is an opportunity
    to see what happens when they adopt different styles.
    
    Alison
                                            

>    So, while you're busy telling your daughter how to dress, maybe
>    you can take some time off to explain to any little boys you come
>    in contact with that they are supposed to respect *all* women and
>    girls and treat them all the same, and not make value judgements
>    about who is dressed like a whore and who isn't, and how they should
>    or shouldn't be treated.

 1) Respect is a funny word. There is one level on which we as human beings
ought to respect other human beings. In this context, I take respect to mean
"to avoid violation of." As individuals, there is an entire different level
of respect (high regard or esteem) that must be earned. I understand what
you're saying in your paragraph, but it isn't clear to me which type of respect
you are talking about.

 2) Value judgements about who is dressed like what are not made quite the way
you seem to think. Rather, if the first 10 females you meet at a bar that are
dressed in an obvious attempt to provoke a sexual reaction end up in the sack
with you, you tend to expect the eleventh to do so as well. Whether this is
a reasonable expectation or not depends on the eleventh female. This does not
mean that you have the right to force her to have sex with you or you should
expect to have sex or anything like that. I am talking about the impression
provocative dressing creates, nothing more.

 Let's put it in a different light, one that involves no gender, since that
seems to bog down the discussion. If the first 10 gang members (wearing their
colors) beat you up, you can reasonably be expected to be afraid of the
11th. Get it?

 The Doctah

    Re .10, no, I don't "get it."  I don't understand why you would
    compare 11 provocatively dressed women in a bar, to 11 gang members
    who beat somebody up?  Are casual sex and violence so closely linked
    in your mind?  Do you consider casual sex to be similar to physical
    violence?  
    
    I don't care *how* the last 11 women who went to bed with you were
    dressed, that still doesn't give you the right to expect sex or
    *not* to expect sex from the next woman, no matter how she's dressed.
     I know there are people who do judge others because of dress, but
    they are wrong.  If a particular woman wants to dress like what we
    have come to expect hookers to dress, but this woman just thinks
    its fun to dress that way, and she's really celibate, then that's
    her business and no one has the *right* to judge otherwise.  They
    may judge her, but they are in the wrong and not her.
    
    It also bothers me that you seem to think there is something wrong
    with women who decide to have sex with someone they meet in a bar.
     Aside from concern about Aids or being killed by a lunatic, I don't
    see anything wrong with it.  Maybe some women want to dress sexy
    so they will attract *someone* but if you're not that someone they
    want the right to say no to you.  Get it?
    
    As far as "respect" goes, I think there is only one kind of respect,
    and that is the respect that we all deserve just for being born
    human beings.  I don't recognize the kind you talk about "earning."
     That concept means nothing to me.
    
    Lorna
    
    expect 

    
    	Hooray, Lorna!
    
    It is now known that an environment which requires you to "earn"
    your "respect", "keep", "esteem", etc is - by definition - a 
    dysfunctional one. 
    
    	Joe Jas
    

>    It is now known that an environment which requires you to "earn"
>    your "respect", "keep", "esteem", etc is - by definition - a 
>    dysfunctional one. 
 
 By your proclamation? You don't get it. Let me try again. As a basketball
player, I have great RESPECT for the basketball playing abilities of Dr. J, 
one Julius Erving. (Also LB etc etc). I have great respect for Mother Theresa
for her humanitarian efforts. They have earned my respect through their deeds.

 I have respect for Lorna's right to harbor opnions differing from my own. It
is not earned- it is supplied as a matter of course to all human beings.

>     Re .10, no, I don't "get it."  I don't understand why you would
>    compare 11 provocatively dressed women in a bar, to 11 gang members
>    who beat somebody up?  Are casual sex and violence so closely linked
>    in your mind?  Do you consider casual sex to be similar to physical
>    violence?  
 
 Let's try to get this into perspective. I am not linking sex and violence
whatever. What I am talking about is the kind of IMPRESSION that one's
dress can give. If the first 10 people you see with purple jackets on beat
you up, you will (subconsciously or not) feel that the same type of thing has a
high probability of happening when you see the 11th. I am establishing a direct
connection between the way someone dresses and the way they are perceived-
rightly or wrongly. If the 11th person is Mahatma Ghandi, your intial fears
are unsubstantiated. If Attila the Hun, maybe you'd best flee.

 You seem to think I have a problem with women and casual sex. Such is not the
case. You also seem to think that people don't make judgements about the way
people dress. Again, that is not the case. I agree with you that "you can't
judge a book by it's cover." BUT- it does happen. That's my whole message.
Even though it isn't right to do, it still happens.

 The Doctah

    Re .13, I do realize that people make judgements about people based
    on dress.  However, I don't think that is the problem of the person
    being judged.  I think it is the problem of the person doing the
    judging.
    
    Lorna
     

    Re:  .14
    
    >I think it is the problem of the person doing the judging.
    
    Of course.  (I thought it was obvious.  I also didn't notice anyone
    imply anything to the contrary.)  The question is, since the problem
    exists, what can be done to alleviate it?

    Re .15, well, you've probably noticed by now that what is obvious
    to one is not obvious to another.  People are different (but that's
    obvious.)
    
    A couple of the men (the doctah, for one) were indicating that young
    girls should be careful how they dress.  One mentioned sending his
    step-daughter back into the bathroom twice to wash off make-up.
     This would indicate to me that they did consider it to be the problem
    of the person being judged.  
    
    Now, why don't you tell us what can be done to alleviate the problem,
    since it's obviously not obvious to me what should be done about
    it.
    
    Lorna
     

    Re:  .16
    
    >A couple of the men (the doctah, for one) were indicating that young
    >girls should be careful how they dress.  One mentioned sending his
    >step-daughter back into the bathroom twice to wash off make-up.
    
    One of the hazards of being a child -- having to put up with the
    attempts of one's parents to form one's character.  Not that I want
    kids, but if I had any, I'd much rather not have my daughter dressing
    "like a tramp" even if I knew very well that she wasn't one.  Until
    the phenomenon of judging people by their appearance has vanished,
    I'd be a lot happier if she weren't subjected to the consequences.
    It's not exactly a problem *of* the person being judged.  It's more
    like a problem *for* the person being judged.
    
    >Now, why don't you tell us what can be done to alleviate the problem,
    
    If I knew, you can be sure I'd have been spouting off about it already.

    re:.8
    
    � ...a woman who went into a bar dressed the way you describt
    as "proper" - long skirt, high collar, a *bun*, wouldn't
    attract *any* men in this day and age! �
    
    *Ahem*  Not necessarily so. It depends on the woman, it depends
    on the man. If I saw Jane Seymour in a bar dressed as she was in
    the film SOMEWHERE IN TIME (turn of the century apparel) --
    unlikely as this scenario may be -- you can be *damned* sure that
    *I* would be attracted to her, and I'm sure that any number of
    other men would be as well.
    
    And it doesn't necessarily have to be someone with killer looks
    like J.S.  I like mini-skirts and sexy dress as well as the next
    person, but I also happen to find some 19th and early 20th Century
    dress to be quite attractive.
    
    But, aside from that, I agree with everything you said.
    
    --- jerry

    	Kids want to be different from both their parents and from other
    siblings. At what age is it not appropiate for a girl to dress 'like
    a tramp' and at what age is it her decision,  I am not sure. I do
    believe that having a girl in 2,3,4th grade dress that way is asking
    for trouble. Children (I include boys here too) need to be taught
    self esteem and self confidence. Doing so creates a well rounded
    person who can think for themselves and someone who does not have
    to follow the crowd, etc. Some problems such as drugs, gangs, sex,
    pregnency, etc might be lessened.
    	I also think that girls especially (please no flames) need to
    be taught this. It seems that there are more actual and perceived
    pressures on them; looks, weight, sex, dress, ect. How about the
    idea of teaching this in grade school?  I know that this is outside
    the normal learning area, but I think it is something that will
    affect them all their lives.

    
    Steve

	Regarding dysfunctional environments, I meant your developemental
one, i.e. where you grew up. The type of respect that you say "is supplied 
as a matter of course to all human beings" is applicable as well to your
children. Some people do not consider their children in this manner, and
therefore are providing what is essentially a dysfunctional environment for
them to grow_up within.

	 >Children (I include boys here too) need to be taught
    >self esteem and self confidence. Doing so creates a well rounded
    >person who can think for themselves and someone who does not have
    >to follow the crowd, etc. Some problems such as drugs, gangs, sex,
    >pregnency, etc might be lessened.

	Children need to be allowed to develop their own self esteem and self
confidence - these attributes of a person cannot be "taught" or "given" or
"imparted upon". It's this slight of context between "allowing for" and 
"forcing upon" that is "The_Great_Misconception_of_Society", I believe.

    	>One of the hazards of being a child -- having to put up with the
    >attempts of one's parents to form one's character.  Not that I want
    >kids, but if I had any, I'd much rather not have my daughter dressing
    >"like a tramp" even if I knew very well that she wasn't one.  Until
    >the phenomenon of judging people by their appearance has vanished,
    >I'd be a lot happier if she weren't subjected to the consequences.

	Yes! That's it - Parents trying to *form* a child's character - as if 
there's this implicate "mold" of some kind that a person's real self must pass
through by age 18 or whatever. By saying "Until this goes away" you're helping
to reinforce the phenomenon; the shame based psychology of "Nice people wouldnt 
like you if you were to wear that to school".

	People have no_idea what this does, and it is probably the whole basis
for this discussion! Part of the perception of certain dress as "trampy" comes
from this _lesson_ which teaches one to *feel* "bad", "naughty", or "trampy"
regarding the "how" they're dressed. "How" is a matter of judgement, and 
judgement happens via considering a set of criteria, which is by definition,
arbitrary. "Your dress is 4 inches above the knees instead of 3. Therefore,
you're a tramp and a whore!"

	This lesson also influences the *expectations* of people when they
consider "how" someone is dressed, and may be part of "the Doktor's" argument.

	It's all bullsh*t as far as I'm concerned, was one of the "conscious
rejections" that I was able to make regarding my parental teachings. "C'mon
Ma! Nobody cares what your shoes look like - they dont look at your shoes
when they greet you - they look at your *face*" I remember how appalled she
was upon learning that John Lennon got married in "tennis sneakers" - she lost
all respect for the man, thought it was "atrocious" and "showed no class"...

	Why the obsession with _shoes_, I've always wondered? Perhaps, at one 
time, people ruthlessly judged others regarding the "condition" of their
shoes; if they were "new-ish" this might lead to a conclusion that the person
was from a "high class" family; if they were "old-ish and beatup" the person
was from a "low class" family. Whatever - a bogus thing to do to someone; 
"judge them" immediately based on something that may have nothing to do with
what kind of person they trully are!

	Joe Jas    
    

    re .18, ok, Jerry, I *know* you're in love with Jane Seymour :-)!
     You'd find *her* attractive in lime green polyester pants with an
    elastic waist band and a matching floral print blouse (like the
    senior citizens wear)! :-)  (Just trying to come up with an atrocious
    outfit!)
   
    Lorna
     
   
    
     

 In the book "Dress for Success," it is posited that the more appropriately
you are dressed to fulfill expectations of superiors, the better you will
be perceived to fit in, do your job, etc. In other words, if you take two
equally qualified candidates for a job, one who is dressed the way the hiring
manager expects his employees to be dressed, and one who is inappropriately
dressed. Who do you think is going to get the job? Why? Even if the "properly"
dressed individual is slightly less qualified, who do you think stands the 
best chance to get the job?

 Surveys have shown a tendency to promote people dressed in the "expected"
manner faster than those whose dress is inappropriate. While this may be less
true in DEC, it undoubtedly still occurs to some extent. Knowing that this
occurs, people have two options: they can "play  the game" or they can remain
true to their ideals and make less money and have less prestige. Different 
people will opt for different choices. But there are choices to be made.

 In the case of children and dress and sexuality, the implications are deeper.
When a girl dresses provocatively, she must understand that no matter how
wrong it is, there will be boys who will attempt to pressure her into sex,
whether she agrees to it or not. It is a fact of life, though not a pretty one.
Knowing that such an outcome is more likely when one dresses provocatively,
it is up to the person to decide whether increased risk is worth the freedom
of dressing as provocatively as one wishes. Since a child cannot be expected
to always make the correct decision on his/her own, parents get involved to
try to help them along a little. In some cases parents must take a very active
role ie you can't go out looking like that. When they are 18, they are free to
do exactly as they wish- but not in my house. If they can live by our rules,
they are free to stay. If they want to make up their own rules, they'll have to
leave. (Obviously such a stance is contingent on alot more than how someone
dresses).

 The Doctah

re: .23

>    I think the idea of trying to control what people think is wrong.  How
>    they behave based on how they think is subject to control.  This is
>    true of behavior toward adolescents or behavior toward single,
>    unaccompanied women in bars dressed as they see fit.
    
I think that is a very idealistic approach that isn't practical or
even desirable in all cases.  

If I were the mother of a 12 year old
girl who wanted to "dress to kill" and looked a sophisticated 17 when
she did, I would be more inclined to change how she dressed (i.e. how people
thought of her,) than to leave her to try to control how someone
might behave toward her.

I don't care what anyone else thinks, in MY opinion, a 12 year old
should not be subjected to the horrors and hazards of fending off
passes. That is cruelty in the name of idealism.


Victoria_who_thank_the_heavens_is_not_a_mother.

    It's important to recognize in this discussion that parents must
    choose their 'battlegrounds' with their kids.  They must decide
    on those core items which are critical and concentrate on them.
     Constant battling over *everything* leads to even worse problems
    than age-inappropriate dress.  It is possible (and in a couple of
    cases where I knew the individuals it was true) that the parents 
    have decided that it is less important to fight the "dress battle" 
    in favor of a more critical one.
    
    For myself, I have 3 goals that all other arguments are subordinate
    to; I want my son to stay away from all illegal drugs and not to
    drink & drive, I want his schoolwork to be of a caliber commensurate
    with his intelligence, and I want him to respect all the people
    around him.  If a battle can't be related to one of those goals,
    it's not worth fighting.
    
    Alison
    

    
    	While this is absolutely true concerning "dress and success",
    it still doesnt make it *right*, or imply necessity in "playing that
    game", unless of course materialism is high on the list of what
    makes an individual feel good about themselves. Personally, I think
    it's a cliche', much like  the "4 year degree" requirement for an
    engineering position. Either concept is so general and really has
    so many exceptions that it looks like swiss cheese to me! The nicer
    dressed interviewee "could" be the one with severe emotional problems
    for all you'd know; the guy with the "tech" degree "could" produce a 
    far greater quantity of work than the interviewee boasting a 4-year
    graduate status!
    
    	Basing "what you think" on such general judgementive criteria
    is stupid, I think. It's either a lazy person's approach or that
    of one who "hasnt got the time" and "must" make these kind of
    assumptions in order to "fill the position"...Whatever that position
    may be. 
    
    	By teaching your children to play this game, and by teaching
    them that "this is what's important in life", you set them up for
    an other-directed existance, which is the *real* problem here, the
    one that's gonna bite down hard later in life.
    
    	There's a difference between someone dressing up to please
    themselves and doing so to please another! There's a difference
    between getting approval based on a direct reflection of who you 
    are vs getting it based on "the presentation you were told to make".
    These differences, though subtle, determine whether actual self 
    esteem is developed within someone, or if they go through life wearing
    whatever "mask" it takes to get them where and what they want from
    others. 
    
    	Joe Jas  

    
    Wow!  This note has sure taken off!!
           
    
    Let me clarify what I was saying about 22 replies ago.
    
    I am a non-conventional dresser outside of work.  When I am here
    at DEC I feel pressured to "play the game" as someone mentioned.
    Sure, I wear predominantly black, and I refuse to buy another jacket,
    especially since I just *love* my black skull/dagger print one I
    got for Christmas and I wear it every day.  I get as close to
    my preferred method of dress while still being socially and 
    "DEC" acceptable.  The only visible trace is the small pink section
    in my blonde hair, and it's very obvious when people notice it.
    Same with my jacket.  When someone catches me on my way out, it's
    very perceptible when they notice *what* those little white things
    on my jacket really are.  You can just *feel* people thinking "Wow,
    and she looks so *normal.*  I didn't think *she* was one of those
    devil worshipping heavy metal people I saw on Geraldo Rivera"
    It's sad that I can't just be "Stacie" all the time, but if I want
    to work here, I have to be a clone like everyone else.  I can accept
    that, it's my choice.  I feel lucky that I have "toned down" my
    look, and I *can* play this silly double-wardrobe game.
                            
    People have reasons for the way they dress.  People choose their
    own clothes, right?  People who dress in a businesslike way are
    making their own statement "I am a businessperson.  I am part of
    the business world."  People who dress like I do are saying "I
    am a non-conformist.  I don't care what people around me think,
    I wear these clothes because it's how I feel or how I choose
    to present myself"  Nothing wrong with any of those attitudes. 
    Whatever you feel comfortable with.  If I had a child, like I said,
    I would encourage him/her to dress and wear their hair however *they*
    wanted.  The fact is that clothes send out a message to the world,
    and I'd want my kids to think carefully about the message they want
    to send and have the feelings inside them to back the messages up.
    
    If a girl wants to send out a sexually suggestive message, that's
    fine.  The same woman should not feel offended if she gets comments
    or the looks that go along with it.  (This statement in no way promotes
    the opinion that a suggestively dressed woman is "asking for it")
    I dress kind of punky, but that's *me* and some people look at me
    differently.  I can accept that, it's just one of the consequences
    of my choice.
    
    So as far as children go, I say let them dress however they choose,
    just make sure they fully understand about impressions and
    statements, and are fully aware of the statement *they* are sending
    out.
    
    Stacie
    

    I can well understand the point of view of a parent who wants to
    exert some influence on what his or her child wears. But, it's
    worth considering that perhaps the way to exert this influence
    is not to do so with a "because it makes you look like a tramp".
    Instead, have a long talk with (*with*, not *to*) the child about
    how other folks view dress and behavior. Explain *why* "people
    will think you're a tramp", the fact that this may be an unfortunate
    aspect of our society that needs changing, but it still carries
    some consequences that need to be taken into account.
    
    Treat children as thinking human beings, and chances are they'll
    think. Treat them as mindless beings that need to be dictated to,
    and they'll just want to rebel.
    
    re:.22
    
    OK, so perhaps Jane is too obvious an example. :-) I still think
    that a lot of that type of dress is attractive, no matter who
    wears it.
    
    --- jerry

    I don't see what the big thing about what ADULTS wear (and I guess,
    to some extent, children) is.  I have always worn what I am most
    comfortable in.  I didn't wear jeans to school except for in my
    senior year.  Now I only own 2 "mini-skirts", all of my other skirts
    and dresses are below the knee; some full, some narrow-cut, some
    slit, etc.  I have only one pair of jeans, and 2 other pairs of slacks.
    I don't care if people think that I am "unfashionable".  I was the
    same way in school.  The most flack I caught was from my mother,
    who DID want me to "wear what the other girls are wearing".  And
    yes, I was unpopular in school.  I got beat up.  I wasn't going
    to school to become Miss Popularity.  And when I graduated, I went
    out, and got some REAL friends.  I am not shy, and can get along
    with a large group of people.  I am in Sales Training now, where
    I am surrounded with different people each week, and I do my best
    to make each and all feel comfortable.
    
    Well, enough of my ranting.  I know that I am the exception, not
    the rule.  But individuality should be encouraged, at ALL ages.
    
    K.C.
    
    P.S.  For the record, I was a B/C average student.

    Re: .28
    
    >The same woman should not feel offended if she gets comments or
    >the looks that go along with it.
    
    I wouldn't say she shouldn't be offended.  But she certainly shouldn't
    be surprised.

    
    
    The psychology and sociology of the basenote is rather reveling.
    Hypothetically lets consider a young woman on the same trajectory
    as Jamie in the basenote.
    
    One of the most powerful motivators in this age group is attention
    and group acceptance. It seems that the behavior she exhibits is
    indeed rewarded by plenty of attention and acceptance.
    
    In the long term the reward gradients are for more of the same.
    For her she need not develop much of a personality or much depth.
    She can just continue being "appealing" and "rewards" of many kinds
    befall her.
    
    In the short term this will work because her needs are being met.
    In the long term there are several possible out comes and few are
    really pleasant or rewarding.
    
    A really disturbing outcome is a frequent one in this society.
    In many respects her reward system is based on her quality as
    as object rather than a human being. Indeed it may take her a very
    long time to discover herself as a person.
    
    Rewarding women as objects and relating to us as objects has had
    devastating effects on us. Marilyn Monroe was an example. In a
    nutshell all Marilyn had to accomplish for her rewards was to be
    an object. There was a separation between the quality of her work
    product and the magnitude of the rewards she received. When this
    occurs humans tend to get very depressed and experience feelings
    of lessening self worth. The condition is referred to as "conditioned
    helplessness.

    We miss you Norma Jean.

    
    Renee

    
    I couldn't resist replying to this note.
    
    I too, like Stacie, am a non-conformist (only three times in my
    life have I had to follow a regulated dress/living code).  At 
    times I've suffered the consequences of "being who I am".  
    
    Unfortunately suffering the consequences can be overt, as in 
    K.C.'s incedent or subtle as the aforementioned "dressed for
    success" topic implies.  As you can see, though, this brutal,
    and I might imagine, emotionally painful experience did not
    change her attitude.
    
    That is why in my opinion people should *really* admire people like
    K.C. more than others who simply "follow the crowd".  I personally
    have been in dangerous situations where "following the crowd" 
    could have meant easy security.  Even someone of my size, in 
    dangerous situations, can be very vulnerable.  But I've always
    been myself in dress, behavior and philosophy.  Of that I am
    *very* proud.                           
    
    Now here's what I'd like some outside perspective on.  
    
    Is it not *responsibility* the real bottom line to how children
    should be brought up.  If they are educated - and I don't mean
    just in school - about life and reality (what a concept) then
    shouldn't they be allowed to practice some responsibility on
    their own?  And if so where should the line be drawn.
    
    One noter has said that her main concern was for her children
    doing well in school, illegal drugs and respect for other 
    value differences.  What the children wore took second place.  
    This doesn't sound too bad to me although I might even be
    more lenient.  I suppose some parents would find too much
    laxity in this structure.  I would value some input
    
    Luis   who believe it or not might even have kids someday!
    
           And sees no reason why they shouldn't be a little
           like their dad.
    
    
    

		Excuse me for being soooo late - but isn't
	the real problem not how the young women were dressed
	and acted but how the boys treated them?  Isn't it not
	the problem of how women dress but how males treat
	women in general?  And isn't the boys problem, don't
	they need to be fixed, since it is the attention they
	give that promotes the problem young women face for
	dressing as they wish.

		Maybe, just maybe if ALL boys were taught
	to treat ALL women as human beings then maybe, just
	maybe this "way of dressing" issue would not be a
	problem.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			How does one look like a tramp?
			Wear a batter humberg, a dirty
			rumpled black morning coat and
			the stub of a cigar.

			The Goddess images are full-figured
			women - no shame about being seen
			as being FEMALE.
    

        >but isn't
	>the real problem not how the young women were dressed
	>and acted but how the boys treated them?

 Terrific! We have identified the real problem. The problem is with boys.
However, given that the "problem" is not about to go away simply because
we have identified it, it seems to me that we have to learn to live within
the (hopefully changing) parameters of life. In fact, we must strive to change
these things which we do not like while at the same time recognizing that
since the world is not perfect, we must adapt to the rules of the game or lose.

 I don't think that anyone has claimed that the problem is with girls. The
problem is that many males react to the way that females dress in inappropriate
ways. Acknowledging that this is a problem and living your life in such a
manner to reduce the risks involved does not constitute acceptance of the
unpleasant behavior. It merely shows that you recognize potential dangers 
and are aware that seemingly innocent acts can be seen as provocation which
in turn increases the risk of a harmful incident.

 Until such time as my daughters are ready to handle the consequences of their
actions, I will endeavor to keep them as safe as is reasonable while still
allowing them maximum freedoms. What they may see as simply expressing them-
selves, a boy may see as a red flag. Certainly we would do everything and
anything to see that justice was served if one of my daughters was the victim
of an attack (sexual or otherwise), but that does little to cure the wounds
already inflicted. I think an ounce of preventive medecine is worth ten
pounds of cure.

 The Doctah

    The thing is, this goes both ways.  
    
    If a girl sees a guy in tight jeans, t-shirt and leather jacket,
    they are concidered "dangerous and exciting", whereas a guy with
    a plain button down shirt, regular slacks (and maybe a tie and 
    glasses) are concidered "nerds".  Guys with long hair are concidered
    hippies and druggies.  
    
    In school, guys sometimes have to face as much judging as the girls
    do.
    
    In other words, the problem is how THE OPPOSITE SEX treats them.
    
    Some public schools are doing an experiment, by having the kids
    wear school uniforms.  In some areas, the kids actually like the
    idea.  (No stress about having all of the "in" clothes.)  Granted,
    it may be an infringement of rights, but this way, all of the kids
    are judged not by clothes.  Maybe the same could be said for adults
    in the workplace, with people following the dress code.
    
    K.C.

    
    re -1>
    
      Except that because we're *adults* we really shouldn't care
      what someone is wearing (as long as it's clean) in order to
      make a value judgement.
    
    LRG

    re:.38
    
    Quite frankly, I think that anyone who judges a person's working
    capabilities by their appearance (especially by their clothes)
    rather than their achievements is (a) not a rational human being,
    and (b) not someone *I* would want to work for.
    
    The only reasonable exceptions I can see to this are:
    
    	Personal hygiene (or lack thereof) causes discomfort to others.
    	This would be especially true in something like food service
    	jobs.
    
    	The job requires a public image to be maintained, such as in
    	sales.
    
    If I had a person working for me who always wore jeans with holes
    in the knees and a sweatshirt with splatters of dried paint on it,
    but always did the job efficiently, I would consider that person
    worth far more than a mediocre-work person who "dressed for success".
    And the reviews and raises would reflect that.
    
    --- jerry

    RE .32
    
    I think you are on course, and that is why I wrote this note. I
    think that kind of attention is a dead end road. Sometimes 
    beauty/looks can be a curse.
    
    RE some of the last ones
    
    In the base note, if Jamie did not receive the attention of the
    boys because they were 'conditioned' not to, I think she would dress
    or act more outrageously.
    
    Steve

    re .41 & .0, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with
    your whole way of thinking in regard to this issue.  I don't really
    see anything wrong with Jamie wanting the attention of a "swarm"
    of boys.  I would have loved to have the attention of a "swarm"
    of boys when I was a teenager (or even pre-teen).  If Jamie is enjoying
    herself, as long as she keeps up with her school work and gets good
    grades, and as long as she doesn't get pregnant, become an alcoholic
    or a drug addict, I don't see anything wrong with her dressing sexy
    and flirting with a "swarm" of boys.  She was probably having the
    time of her life.  I also don't think that young girls dressing
    sexy and attracting swarms of boys necessarily leads to divorce
    and unhappiness in adults either.  (In fact my own mother and I
    were just the opposite.  When my mother was young she was considered
    very pretty and had tons of attention from boys.  Later, she went
    on to have a happy 37 year marriage.  I, on the other hand, was
    considered a creep when I was young, and later went on to have a
    divorce and a fairly consistently unhappy love life.  So, who
    knows....)  If beauty/looks can be a curse, it's a curse I wouldn't
    mind living with.   The importance of physical appearance for women
    is, in itself, a curse, no matter what a woman looks like.  It's
    a curse to be average looking or homely, too!!
    
   Your views remind me of the things my father used to say about kids
    back in the 1960's.  My father was born in 1901.  He's be almost
    88 if he were alive today.  I thought he was an old fart then....
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .43
    
    Personally, flight is MUCH more important than pretty feathers!
    
    (Can you elaborate on the "cap and gown" theory?  I'm curious.)
    
    Also, haven't you heard that bald is sexy?  ;^)
    
    K.C.

    In English colleges and universities it used to be (I don't
    know if it still is) the custom for all the students to wear
    their gowns to all their classes. I believe that this is
    also true of some Candian schools as well. This did have the
    effect of covering their other clothing and making everyone
    more or less equal. In America we only wear the academic gowns
    at graduation.
    
    Bonnie

    p.s. and eagles...in re .46, tho I've never noticed any thining
    of your feathers..anyone in the =wn= world who has met my husband
    knows that I am a woman who finds bald heads attractive. :-)
    

    re:.38
    
    � Some public schools are doing an experiment, by having the kids
    wear school uniforms.  In some areas, the kids actually like the
    idea.  (No stress about having all of the "in" clothes.)  �
    
    Stress?  Oh, the poor little dears.  When I was in public school,
    my parents weren't overburdened with money, and I chose to spend
    what money I had on books rather than clothes. So, I never had the
    "in" clothes, either. Didn't bother me in the least, but then, I
    was never part of the "in crowd" to begin with.
    
    re:.42
    
    � If beauty/looks can be a curse, it's a curse I wouldn't mind
    living with. �
    
    You're being much too modest, Lorna.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .47, thank you for the nice comment, Jerry.
    
    [maybe I did exaggerate a little! :-)]  Sometimes when I get depressed
    over certain "things" I start imagining that if only I were as
    beautiful as Christy Brinkley, or Kim Basinger, or Jane Seymour
    that my entire life would always be hunky-dory!  (when that *probably*
    isn't the case!)
    
    Lorna
     

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 442.42                 Am I wrong to think this?                   42 of 48
APEHUB::STHILAIRE "Maybe tomorrow, maybe someday..." 28 lines  24-FEB-1989 09:22
                          -< much ado about nothing >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    re .41 & .0, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with
>    your whole way of thinking in regard to this issue.  I don't really
>    see anything wrong with Jamie wanting the attention of a "swarm"
>    of boys.  I would have loved to have the attention of a "swarm"
>    of boys when I was a teenager (or even pre-teen).  
>    
>       Your views remind me of the things my father used to say about kids
>    back in the 1960's.  My father was born in 1901.  He's be almost
>    88 if he were alive today.  I thought he was an old fart then....
>    
>    Lorna
    

    Lorna, I am sorry you feel that way and that maybe I brought back
    some bad memories from your earlier years. 
    	I suppose you MUST draw the line somewhere. 
    At what age is it inappropiate for children to go out on dates alone?
    At what age is it inappropiate for children to have sex?
    At what age is it inappropiate for children to have children?

    The first response is 'it depends on the child/person' That sounds
    great but is a pat answer. When child A does X at age 5, and your
    child B cannot do X at age 7 because you as a caring loving parent
    believe it is wrong or inappropiate for a child of 5 or 7, then you
    the parent becomes the ogre when in reality, maybe the parent of
    A is a non-caring, anything goes, doesn't learn from mistakes, sort
    of person.
    
    This IS NOT meant to be personal, and please do not take it that
    way.
    
    Steve

    
    PS I chapperoned (sp) another trip the other day. I wasn't on the
    bus this time, but observed Jamie before and after. From her
    mannerisms, she appears to be less sophisticated (i.e. a child)
    than her dress would have someone believe.

I think it would be _incredibly_ interesting if we knew how different cultures,
now and in history, viewed sex (not gender) and age. Any references?
	Mez

  I could be completely wrong, but didn't Margaret Mead's book "The Coming of
Age in Somoa" have a discussion, albeit extremely controversial (c.f. Derek
Freidman) view for that one culture?  I wouldn't want to generalize anything
off of this particular island, though.