On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Liza Featherstone wrote:
> Of course it is subjective. But I did give some examples of people looking
> good. They are quite varied (hats in church, colorful Bangladeshi wraps),
> but they all have this in common: people look like they're trying. Even when
> I don't personally love the results -- makeup on Tammy Faye Bakker, for
> instance, or 50 Cent's big gold jewelry - I'm still going to respect the
> effort. People wearing sweatclothes or leisurewear aren't trying.
There are obviously significant regional/subcultural differences here. Among the people I know, Tammy Faye's considered an ugly clown. The fact that she spends so much time to look like that just makes it more gruesome and deserving of ridicule. It's not just a question of how much effort is put into a look; it's a question of how that look reflects the values and norms of a group we identify with.
--For instance, women shaving their armpits: for many Americans, not shaving is appalling lack of personal hygeine; for other cultures, it's appalling to shave. What constitutes proper attire is culturally negotiated. It may take inordinate amounts of ritual to dress properly, or it may be simply putting on a robe. The objective amount of time or effort is more or less irrelevant to the question of what is "proper".
And not to sound like a cranky old radical feminist, but these beauty/attire standards are far from innocuous: for instance, the more onerous the beauty expectations are for women, the more time they have to devote/waste to be dressed "properly". Let's face it, there are a limited number of hours in a day: if, as a man, I get to put on a drab uniform quickly and a women is expected to dress more ornately, who has more free time for other activities (say, optional job training/networking)?
These differences in attire are not just personal style or some people "not putting in enough effort"; they are political through and through.
Miles
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>