I recently wrote an article discussing how people use language, such as ‘whore’ or ‘slut’, to lay the ideological foundations to justify violence against women, and subsequently as a means of control. In the article, I wanted to go further than simply make incriminations against men - I also wanted to examine how patriarchal strategies can co-opt women, and turn them into collaborators. Women who dress up may do so with the intention either of ‘gaming the system’ of male libido, or simply to acquire the rights that they are otherwise entitled to, may be actually perpetrating the very system of heterosexual male favouritism that they are resentful towards. In other words, many women are playing - and benefiting from - the very game I thought they would resent.
Another way I find useful understanding this issue is by understanding it as a matter of semiotics. The tension around the politics of dressing up may simply be rooted in a misunderstanding – heterosexual men and women attach very different conscious signification to dress. From the perspective of many men, for instance, women dress up (the signifier) to appear sexually available and, indeed, promiscuous (the signified). Yet from the perspective of many women, I figure, they’re simply dressing up in order to elicit compliments from their girlfriends about their dress sense. Women say one thing, guys hear something different, and misunderstandings ensue.
However, I assume that for the vast majority of cases, women do not intentionally dress up to impersonate hookers. Part of this misunderstanding may be rooted in a lack of empathy: women may well enjoy sex as much as men, but women are generally not as horny as men are. As Stephen Fry observed -
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my fucking rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
Supposedly, the majority of the times that women dress up outside of going out – to work, to shop, to watch a film – they are not even doing so for the benefit of men, but for other women. If a woman dresses up for a bar or nightclub, she is not saying that she is ‘asking for it’. Rather, a large part of it is that she is trying to increase her standing amongst her peers.
Obviously, women who play on the abundance of a guy’s testosterone, and then rebuke them, can leave said guy feeling frustrated, even betrayed. This seems particularly unjust when said man happens to think of himself as a Nice Guy. However, obviously women “don't have to [agree to sex], and no force in the world can change that.” They are not mounting up a debt of sexual favours simply by dressing attractively, and acting comfortable around males.
By dressing seductively, however, women are signifying something. Maybe that ‘something’ is that they are going along with the aesthetic demands of heterosexual males – that is, spending not a small amount of time and money on preparing themselves for the male gaze – and thus their ‘subservience’ to the patriarchy. The flipside of that, however, might well be that they are indicating an expectation of better treatment, and thus engendering an air of entitlement. Of course, women frequently dress up for other women, particularly in the workplace. Even in a predominantly (or exclusively) female work environment, women still attend to their appearance. However, I am quite sure that sexual desirability still factors into this.
I suspect that heterosexual women base much of their behaviour and life choices not in order to seek approval from men, such as existing or hypothetical partners, but rather approval from other women. However, heterosexual women judge other heterosexual women ultimately on their ability to attract powerful, desirable men. Of course, a very gracious and dignifying collective-rationalization obscures all of this. No one wants to think of the time he or she spends on life projects as simply playing into the hands of existing power structures – to be “the brilliant ally of your own gravediggers.” Thus, we have glossy magazines and glorious billboards proclaiming beauty as an ends unto itself – when really the end is primarily preferential mate selection.
Yet, there must be some understanding of the effect of dressing up. As Helen Garner writes in The First Stone in response to a young woman remarks that a man’s advances made her feel like a ‘worthless sexual object’:
“The phrase gave me the little shiver one gets when confronted with the disingenuous. Why would a young woman feel ‘worthless’ when a man makes an unwelcome sexual approach to her? She might not like it. She might want very much for it to stop. But why does it make her feel ‘worthless’? Would she feel ‘worthless’ if the man were younger, better-looking, more cool? Or is worthless sexual object just a rhetorical flourish, a bit of feminist sabre-rattling on behalf of a young woman who has not taken the responsibility of learning to handle the effects, on men, of her beauty and her erotic style of self-presentation?”
When a woman dresses up for a nightclub, she might actually be attempting to increase her ‘market value so that she can better negotiate with the alpha males in the room. Maybe she does not intend to hook up that night. She might not want to take someone particularly attractive home with her that night – but she wants to know she has that option. Maybe she just wants to flirt, and dressing up makes her feel empowered.
Wait a minute ... Empowered to do what? - rob a bank? - fly? No - empowered to hook up with alpha males if she so chose. Moreover, increase her standing amongst her peers in regards to what? –her superior buying power? - her Olympic-level athleticism? No – her standing as someone who is able to pick up hot men.
Ladies: if it is any consolation, I think that men do much the same. The (arguably petty) endeavours that men get caught up in - every one of those dumbbell lifts, all those unpaid hours on the job, each swing at someone in a bar – are not for our amusement.
They’re for yours.
Image by dhammza
0 comments:
Post a Comment