Is this trying to make the argument that expecting women to not wear yoga pants in a professional environment is wrong? I honestly don't get the comparison. Hell, I agree, if you are a man wearing skinny jean like suits, you should get just as much flack. Or if you have very short sleeves (beyond half the arm), or an overly tight shirt, or an overly low collar... The notion isn't absurd. Wearing clothing that shows off your form is a form of... showing off your form... it's not suitable for a professional environment and it shouldn't be happening in business meetings. Who gives a shit if it makes your thought stray. Sex needs to stay the hell out of the workplace, and we aren't going to get rid of it by saying "just stop being turned on!" And don't you dare lie to me and say women aren't just as turned on by men as things. They are and there should be just as much stigma against both sides. And really, the argument about hands and arms? You know what is necessary to function in society? Exposed hands. You know what isn't. Your ass. So, sorry women who want to wear yoga pants to your business meetings, or to class (AKA: work preparation), but it's going to fly just about as well as the guys who want to show up to school with armpits exposed (wasn't allowed in my school at least). Are you not comfortable? Deal with it like the rest of us. Pants and a T-shirt are perfectly comfy.
No, this is trying to make an argument that you can't let what other people are wearing be an excuse for how you treat them. There's a HUGE difference between thinking something and being seemingly unable to control your reaction to your hormones. Yes, as you suggest, this does apply to all sides, and there are people of all genders who get handsy when they see something they like and it's ALWAYS inappropriate, no matter who is doing it. The problem is that there is a deeply-ingrained culture of acceptance in cis-male and socially conservative groups where, because feminine figures are seen as "inferior" somehow (often not even conciously, but sometimes it's encouraged), masculine figures are allowed to treat them as they please, and do so with impunity. This is not to say that all of the members of the aforementioned groups are like this, but there are enough of them that the problem needs to be pointed out and addressed. This culture of impunity and superiority is the problem, and I think a lot of it comes from how we culturally view people. People who are attractive must not be intelligent, and must be relying on their good looks to get ahead in life (the opposite also being true of looking down on "overly intelligent" people). As a result we must be superior than them and look down on them, seeing them as deserving of whatever misfortune they come upon. This applies to the "Never misses Leg Day, Do-You-Even-Lift" muscular men as much as it applies to the "My bag matches my Dress which matches my Shoes" pink-loving Barbie Girl, or to the "I seem like an asshole but it's only because I can't figure out how to simplify I know enough for you to understand" Intelligent person (both obviously caricatures for the sake of example). Basically we are Crabs in a Bucket, pulling down anyone who attempts to rise above "Normal" in any way. We're a really fucked up species.Is this trying to make the argument that expecting women to not wear yoga pants in a professional environment is wrong?
"No, this is trying to make an argument that you can't let what other people are wearing be an excuse for how you treat them" " There's a HUGE difference between thinking something and being seemingly unable to control your reaction to your hormones." Treating a person differently has little to do with hormones. Massive amounts of what we do is based around social constructs and making a statement. People will judge and treat you differently no matter what you are wearing. Hormones regardless. "The problem is that there is a deeply-ingrained culture of acceptance in cis-male and socially conservative groups where, because feminine figures are seen as "inferior" somehow" I'm sorry, what? Where is this coming from? Where do we treat the female form as inferior and what does that have to do with wearing decent clothing in public? " People who are attractive must not be intelligent, and must be relying on their good looks to get ahead in life (the opposite also being true of looking down on "overly intelligent" people). As a result we must be superior than them and look down on them, seeing them as deserving of whatever misfortune they come upon." What does this have to do with the article? Judging someone based on the clothes they wear, or saying people should be wearing decent/a certain set of clothing has nothing to do with this. "Basically we are Crabs in a Bucket, pulling down anyone who attempts to rise above "Normal" in any way." My entire point. It has nothing to do with sex. (well, with your own gender/preferential treatment). This article makes it seem like the same judgement does not apply to men, and says "What if it did" when, in reality, it does already. You just see it in different forms, and you see fewer men going against what is expected of them.
So you know, there's a Quote function in the Hubski Markup. If you put | before and after things you want quoted it'll make it a lot easier to read. I think we're seeing eye to eye here more than we are disagreeing, especially on the effect of social constructs on how we view other people. I'd also like to repeat here (as I tried to make clear in my original comment), that these are things that affect all genders, not just a men vs women thing. I agree, however there are many, MANY sexual assault and rape cases where "S/He was asking for It" or "Look at what S/He was wearing, I couldn't help myself" are used, along with other defences that place the blame on the victim while citing an inability to control themselves. What do we mean when we say someone "can't control themselves"? Usually we are referring to some sort of Edwardian concept of the "animalistic human" which we all keep inside of us, mostly composed of hormones and the "reptillian brain" (a theory which is not 100% accepted, though it is popular in public thought). So when I said "Unable to control their reaction to their hormones", this is what I was referring to. If you can't "Control yourself" in that sense, then perhaps you need to get some help. I won't comment specifically on the treatment of the feminine figure as inferior, though If you decide to embark on a journey through sociological textbooks to get more info I think you'd gain at least some good points to refute or differ from. However, you touch upon a pivotal concept. what exactly are "decent clothes", where did we get that Idea, and how do we define it? There are all sorts of things that are considered "Decent Clothes" which are also able to be put into the light of a sexual object (Without delving into the idea of "Fetish" whether in the Marxian or causal usage of the term). A plain black Pencil Skirt that is Knee length and non-revealing Can be seen as incredibly sexy, as can the suits shown in the original article. What these person are wearing is seen as "Decent Clothes" in a young office setting (maybe add a blazer for the woman). But someone could be wearing these clothes and be walking home, get raped, and then someone would say "they were asking for it." that shit's unacceptable, yo. But we have two options: we can make some sort of societal dress code which prevents "Dark thoughts" (See Burkas and Niqabs), or we can allow people to wear what they want and not be such judgemental pricks who can't prevent themselves from being handsy. Because the Status quo just isn't cutting it. At this point in my comment I've moved into a broader picture, not just involving the clothes we wear, but how we treat people who are "Societally exceptional" or not fitting into "normal." We simultaneously put them on a pedestal and throw rotten tomatoes at them, when they deserve neither. I see that as pretty fucked up, and it's what I was trying to get at. Men are at a historical advantage here in what is "expected of them", though, come to think of it, what is really "expected of them?" Why do women AND men need to be stuck in the rut of what has been historically expected of them? It's late, I'm getting ramble-y again, so I'll leave it there, because it's going to get incoherent. Needless to say, Of course these things affect all genders and all people. Switching the Genders, as the article does, is a literary exercise to put a finer point on what people say, and the problems with it.Treating a person differently has little to do with hormones.
Where do we treat the female form as inferior and what does that have to do with wearing decent clothing in public?
What does this have to do with the article?
you see fewer men going against what is expected of them.
This has little to nothing to do with the article posted. I understand those things happen, that they are bad, etc. However, this is an article trying to highlight a double standard that just doesn't seem to exist. Not situations/a situation of "she was wearing yoga pants so she deserved it" Unless I read it wrong, it was saying that we shouldn't judge women based on what they wear, because "This is what it would be like if we did the same for men" and it doesn't make sense to me. And the entire "Can't control yourself" is idiotic. Imagine people used that argument for fat people. "I just can't control it, I HAVE to keep eating!" We are humans, we are all about ignoring and controlling urges. Clothes that are average and commonly accepted in a society. That's just about it. People are weird, and in some places you can be judged for stupid things that we find normal. Go outside what is expected of you, and you will be judged. Simple as that. And I honestly don't get the "what if you just changed situations" argument either. People who are coming home from work will not be out very long, saying "what if it's appropriate here and not there" is fine, but about 90% of the time when you see people wearing something, they dressed for the situation you are seeing them in. And the "but she deserved it" argument has nothing to do with this article. It's not a related thing. People being judged for the clothes they wear can exist without and outside of idiots trying to use that to justify doing a horrible thing. This article is only speaking on the subject that we shouldn't be expected to conform to standards and/or tries to make the standards we have for women seem obscene by applying similar ones to men. What I am saying is that similar standards already apply. You changed the topic. Brought in something unrelated to make your argument sound better. And that has little to do with the article at hand. I do not really agree that it's fucked up to be treating those who act/dress differently in a better or worse way selectively. They are the ones acting differently, if they wanted to be treated normally, they can act normally. Do I agree with people going out of their way to shit on others to make themselves feel better? Or those trying to control others through being incredibly strict and judgmental about what others do or wear? No. However, those situations are outliers. For the most part, you only really get a lot of judgement if you go out of your way to be a certain way, and honestly I think it is well deserved. Ah, a historical advantage? I guess china is also at a historal advantage at being a world superpower also? Can you honestly not think of a single thing? The only thing men are expected to wear are pants/t-shirt style clothing. Suits, pants/shorts/t-shirt, button up. That's about it. Go outside that and you are outside what is expected. Men are judged for wearing skinny jeans or other too-tight clothing, wearing anything frilly or "girly". There may be more, but those are the two main ones. We shouldn't be! I have no issue with those who want to step away from what is expected of them to do something new. I do have issue with people acting like they are entitled to do it without being judged. Also with people who are clearly begging for attention rather than having real motivations.I agree, however there are many, MANY sexual assault and rape cases where "S/He was asking for It" or "Look at what S/He was wearing, I couldn't help myself" are used, along with other defences that place the blame on the victim while citing an inability to control themselves.
. what exactly are "decent clothes"
At this point in my comment I've moved into a broader picture
but how we treat people who are "Societally exceptional" or not fitting into "normal." We simultaneously put them on a pedestal and throw rotten tomatoes at them, when they deserve neither. I see that as pretty fucked up, and it's what I was trying to get at.
Men are at a historical advantage here in what is "expected of them"
come to think of it, what is really "expected of them?"
Why do women AND men need to be stuck in the rut of what has been historically expected of them?
This article isn't addressing this issue in the context of the workplace. I guess because it focused on suits, that's where you got stuck. After all, men don't usually wear suits outside of work unless it's for a special occasion. This article is addressing the issue of people who encourage to dress women "modestly" and literally in their blog posts say that women wearing things like yoga pants are "asking for" attention from the male sex and that women wearing such things as yoga pants in public (on the street, for example) causes them to lose the respect of both the males and females around them. People who say that it is the woman's fault that men find her desirable and that in order to be appropriately modest she should not be attempting to elicit the desire of men and that should be reflected by restricting her wardrobe choices to clothes which "do not elicit lust." Which apparently includes wearing exercise gear in public. What about women who wear yoga pants because they're fucking going to yoga class? That's what I want to ask some of the people who wrote articles this article is responding to (they are all linked at the top of the post if you feel like exploring, I did).
People who wear "form fitting/revealing" clothing probably are asking for attention, to be honest. Male or female. If it was a question of comfort than why are yoga pants such a sudden trend when the comfort issue would have existed for ages? " People who say that it is the woman's fault that men find her desirable and that in order to be appropriately modest she should not be attempting to elicit the desire of men and that should be reflected by restricting her wardrobe choices to clothes which "do not elicit lust." Which apparently includes wearing exercise gear in public." This kind of glosses over the point that the entire reason most people wear any specific set of clothing is to say something about themselves, to appear a certain way. Do you honestly think that women wearing yoga pants do so because they just feel like it for no reason? What point is there in casually wearing yoga pants? Comfort? Something sweatpants already had? I honestly only see one/two good reasons. One, to look sexy. Two, to follow the idiotic trend of people wearing yoga pants in public. So you are either a) trying to appeal to men, or b) mindlessly following trends. Do you think we should be able to go around, wearing anything, and nobody should ever complain because "it's them having the reaction to it, they have to deal with it". Screw public indecency laws. I wanted to have my dick hanging out, it's comfy. Yes, it's an extreme, but it's the same exact argument applied to a different scenario. Imagine you saw a guy walking around with speedo-jeans that clearly outlined certain areas. Be honest, would you avoid the person? Would you prefer they wear a normal person's clothing? Do you not think that the whole reason people wear clothes in the first place is to make themselves better in the eyes of others? I understand that the whole "men need to be shielded from women" argument is absolutely bullshit. Men are adults, they can and should be able to deal with seeing a woman outside wearing just about anything. I can't agree with that any more. However, I think there is perfectly valid reason to judge people wearing yoga pants, even without that argument. I honestly don't see how yoga pant-wearing would be a positive/neutral note if I saw someone doing it. (As a side note: I'm not the sort of person who cares about any of this stuff. I didn't even know about the yoga pants trend until a few months ago, when all my friends started pointing out girls wearing them. It's not something I pay attention to, not something I judge for, and not something I care about personally. However, I can see why others do, and in more severe situations (public indecency) I would have no problem judging people for what they choose to wear, or not wear) And, honestly, how often would someone going to yoga be seen walking on the street randomly, rather than say, driving to class. The number of people you will see casually walking to a actual yoga class is next to zero. Most of the outrage I see over yoga pants is with them being banned in schools.