We watched a debate about the child of our time series on BBC4. The participants, who were all vaguely famous and vaguely clever, were discussing a variety of those things people always talk about when talking about modern childhood. And we discussed whether we liked what they were saying and if 'critically evaluating' was normal language or jargon (guess who fell on which side of that fence?) and we critically evaluated their outfits.
So. One woman was wearing just too many different attention-grabbing accessories/hair/make-up/everything. One woman had weird hair. And one woman had a top I didn't really like. One man was, maybe, dressed a bit too casually. One man looked nice, smiled a lot and said nice things that I liked. And one man was Robert Winston, who I think may be a modern-day saint as no-one ever says bad things about him.
I noticed
we were much more critical of the way the women were dressed, which reminded me of the whole Ferngate thing, and the Guardian's suggestion that public women's bodies are considered public property. So I interrogated my thinking... Is it just because women wear a wider variety of clothing, so there's more to discuss*? Or is it that the way every public woman dresses is considered fair game for discussion in a way that doesn't generally happen to men? Or maybe that women are considered to be more interested in clothes generally, so are more scrutinised because of this association between women and clothing? I don't know, but I'm planning to do some more thinking about it every time I dislike someone's shirt.
And, as we're discussing children, I'm throwing in a gratuitous picture of my favourite baby ever:
*It's like this at work too. Men wear a shirt and a pair of trousers. And either a tie or not a tie. There's some choice over colour/pattern of shirt, the tie question and, if they wear one, how much they care whether their shirt matches their tie. For women, it's more interesting, probably a bit more relaxed, but much more complicated.
7 comments:
You're right, it's easy for men to dress for work and no-one makes comments about what they're wearing (unless it's a pink shirt, which can raise comments). Whereas it's much more complicated for women. On one hand, I like the idea that I don't have a "uniform" of a shirt and tie and have the freedom to wear what I like. But the downside is that on some days I can't be bothered to make an effort and either:
a- wear any old thing and look a bit weird
b- take a ridiculous amount of time going through my wardrobe and end up concluding that I simply have NOTHING to wear, and then go shopping.
Robert Winston is a pensioner-murdering whore who regularly spits in the face of disabled people whilst burning down charity shops.
I think it's rubbish that men's workwear tends to be so limited, and that every time I shop I have to wade through 85% of irrelevant clothing (usually bras) just to get to the menswear section. I'd rather have the comparitive variety and choice women have if that means a bit more pressure to choose the right wardrobe in the morning.
The Fern Britten thing is disgusting and sadly predictable.
Yes, I think I mainly feel glad that I can choose what I want to wear. I guess this is partly because women started working more recently in history, when dress generally was less formal, so they are less stuck in tradition.
But I do dislike the fact that how women look is so scrutinised and, I think, that women are made to feel more insecure about how they look and also encouraged to criticise how other women look.
I find it difficult at work. I need to wear stuff that is comfortable for walking round my estate in the sun, looks smart enough to have authority to tell my tenants off for breaches of tenancy, yet isn't so formal as to make me unapproachable and, ideally, also suits me and is something I like wearing.
It's a challenge.
And I think men should find more freedom in what they wear. I have a friend from my SPEAK days who used to wear skirts sometimes and he looked awesome. I think it's the way forward.
It is changing - at least in the tech industry there's no 'uniform' as such and it's a while since I've seen anyone in a suit and tie. I don't know whether it's a general trend or an anomaly due to the relatively new nature of the industry, though.
Personally I think it's a bit difficult to compare the way celebrities are treated (by the immensely shallow and misogynistic tabloid press) and the ordinary bloke in the street... I wouldn't ordinarily make any special note of what someone was wearing unless it was particularly outrageous (and men do that just as much).
That's it. From now on, I'm wearing smocks.
Interestingly, I've always thought that women got away with wearing more or less what they like in an office.
Certainly in the places that I have worked, man are expected to wear a suit (dark, sober colour for preference) and a tie (nothing ostentatious, mind) with a shirt. Now, admittedly some places have a dress down Friday policy (what's that about anyway) but even then, there is an understanding that "office casual" is the level to which one may dress down.
Women on the other hand tend to have "office casual" as their baseline, and (in my limited experience) tended to glam-up a bit on dress down Fridays.
Certainly, there's far fewer restrictions on the acceptable dress code for women in the office than there is for men.
Post a Comment