Sometimes this not trying can represents a kind of arrogance and privileged smugness-- the sloppiness of many men for instance. When I first met with my publishers to get a contract for my book, I wore a suit. My editor (female) said, "I've seen so many male authors wear whatever they felt like to these meetings. I've never seen a female author do that." Now, there's certainly something to Charles's shrewd observation about concern for appearances among the oppressed that applies here. But that doesn't make disregard for one's looks a virtue. Many white and straight men can still get a date and a job even if they look like hell -- but they're still a blight on the visual environment.
Liza
> From: snitsnat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:25:07 -0400
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] dregs and drugs
>
> At 10:55 AM 4/25/2005, Liza Featherstone wrote:
>
>> None of this is to say that I, personally, think anyone has a moral or civic
>> *obligation* to dress nicely, not at all. A lot of people may have other
>> things on their minds, and more pressing concerns, and that's fine. But, I
>> enjoy and appreciate seeing people who make an effort -- not specifically to
>> dress fashionably or in any specific way, but ANY kind of effort at all to
>> express any sort of aesthetic -- and am grateful for it. I think plenty of
>> other people feel the same way.
>
>
> As someone who was treated as a dumb blonde as a kid, who professer's
> preferred to make passes at while stringing me along making me think it was
> b/c i was smart, who had to deal with a chair who preferred to describe my
> looks as beautiful, rather than tell a student that she was lucky to be
> taking a class with the person in the department who'd won teaching awards
> _and_ prestigious fellowships, and who had to deal with deans that stared
> at my tits.... UGH!
>
> I just don't get it. And no woj, it's not about "them". I don't care how
> much money someone has. If he thinks he looks nice and chinos and a golf
> shirt, I can't agree with Duncombe that he doesn't care about anyone. I
> don't know who you people hang out with, but I just don't see people
> looking that badly. I guess I just don't pay attention. Kinda like it was a
> shock to me to learn that Sex and the City was all about clothes and
> fashion, or so thought Jon Johanning. !! I didn't even notice! In a vague
> way, since each woman is arhetypal and her fashion reflects the character,
> but the specifics? I was watching the show, not the clothes?!
>
> What really annoys me is that failure to say just exactly what is beautiful
> and what is ugly. I think it's incredibly subjective. I think the purple
> clothes and red hats women are wearing lately, just ugly, though they are
> usually dressed up. Ugly nonethless.
>
> But no one every wants to details what it is that's ugly. Steve Dunscombe
> does and he lists things that I can't see are a problem. Chinos? Golf shirts?
>
> SAme thing with the left pubs are ugly trope. I personally think LBO
> qualifies and it's not my subjective opinion, but one I could back up with
> reference to appropriate use of negative space, font types, font size/line
> spacing/line length. All of these things make for a better reading
> experience and make the newsletter enjoyable to read. As it is, it's painful.
>
> Now, I've just broken all kinds of norms of propriety. I'd say I'd make
> Doug feel bad, but I doubt he'll feel bad and instead see me as an asshole.
>
> But at least I can say exactly what's wrong with it and why and even
> explain why it's a newsletter that sends the message that the author
> doesn't care about the readers -- even though he obviously does!
>
>
> Kelley
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk