Women and clothes – damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Take a look at these two posts if you haven’t already.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/28/rip-dignity-shelf-bras/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2061608,00.html


The first is by Twisty of IBTP (thanks to Kim for the link) and the second is from Manal Omar, a Muslim American woman living in England. What is interesting to me is that both of these women had the experience of being publicly chastised for their choice of swimwear and yet everything else, from what they were wearing to the people doing the criticizing, was different.
Twisty was publicly chastised for going to the pool without wearing a top. The logical absurdity of this should be obvious, since she has no breasts. Why should her now completely flat chest require covering up? Apparently simply because she is a woman. I’ve seen the same logic applied to girls too young to have breasts on many occasions. Apparently one must acknowledge the theoretical possibility of breasts, even if the actual body parts in question are not in evidence.
Omar was publicly chastised for wearing swimwear compatible with Muslim teachings. In her case her breasts (or area where breasts could theoretically be) were covered. In fact, apparently her body was too well covered.
In Twisty’s case the people critiquing her choice of swimwear were all women. In Omar’s case there was one really obnoxious man complaining, and then another man who silently backed him up. In both cases what the people doing the complaining were doing was attempting to enforce their own subjective ideas of what women are “supposed” to wear in a swimming pool. In Omar’s case you can take the sexism present in both examples and add a big, heaping dose of racism and religious bigotry. In Twisty’s case add a big heaping dose of American society’s fear of illness and death and the resulting belief that sick people should hide themselves from public view in order that they not upset people by reminding them that sickness and death eventually come to us all. The results in both cases were the same. Both women modified their behavior – Twisty is attempting to find swimwear that will fit the “code” without making her miserable, and Omar hasn’t been back to the pool since. Neither woman should have had to modify their behavior at all.
I think that’s the logical feminist response to both situations, by the way, not to mention the compassionate human response. Why should a woman who has had a double mastectomy be forced to wear a top that she does not need in order to assuage other people’s discomfort with the reality that breast cancer exists and that it sometimes results in women having their breasts removed? Why should Omar not be able to get some exercise while following the dictates of her own conscience?
Because they’re women, and in the minds of many people women’s bodies – how they clothe them, how they maintain them, how they adorn them – are EVERYONE’S business.
Except they aren’t, really. Every human being’s body belongs to that person first and foremost. Even if that person has a vagina.
This is where I lose patience with the idea that there is a proper feminist way to dress, and an improper way. This idea is based on the concept that there is a specific way that the patriarchy wants us to look, and that going along with that is giving in, making a compromise, passively supporting the status quo.
The problem with that is that there is no one way that the patriarchy wants us to look, as the above examples illustrate. The patriarchy I grew up in wants women covered up all the time. The one I am currently living in wants women in sparkly thongs…except the part of it which is conservative, which wants them in “modest” clothing. And the other part which wants them in crunchy hemp clothing here in the Bay Area, or the one in Manhattan that wants them in business suits, or…
Are you getting the point? There is no way in which one can dress to defy the patriarchy, because the patriarchy takes many forms, and each subgroup has its own ideas about how women “should” look. The one thing that never changes is that each and every manifestation of patriarchy ultimately believes that men should be the ones pulling the strings.
So then, what is a feminist to do? Drive herself nuts trying to figure out how best to defy the cultural mandates of the particular subgroup she finds herself a part of?
That doesn’t sound like a great plan to me. Not only because I don’t think it will work, but because I don’t think it’s addressing the real problem. The real problem is the idea that men have the right to decide how women “should” look in the first place. This isn’t all about heels and miniskirts, people – where I grew up the outfit that got women approving pats from The Pat involved an all-encompassing black silk robe and covering one’s hair and face completely. The problem isn’t the clothes, the problem is that idea that it’s up to men to decide which clothes are “appropriate”.
I say fuck that idea. The logical feminist response to all this crap is to say “each woman should be free to wear whatever the hell she wants”. In other words, since nothing that any of us choose to wear is going to do a damn thing to change the system, the best feminist response is for each women to wear whatever makes her happiest. If it’s a sparkly bikini, fine. If it’s bottoms with no top because one no longer has any breasts to require supporting, fine. If it’s a 5 piece “burkini”, fine. As long as it’s what provides maximum happiness and minimum inconvenience to the woman involved, it sounds like a valid feminist choice to me.