DRESS YOU DOWN

I knew this gal who used to come to work looking like she had dressed herself with nothing more than Ace bandages wrapped around her torso; on certain days you thought that if she had arrived draped in a bath towel instead she would have been more fully clothed. She worked in Accounting -- not exactly the bastion of fearless self-expression in the workplace -- so it's not surprising she attracted disapproving looks and talk among her co-workers.

Perhaps because I went to fashion school and worked in the apparel industry for years, there's not much that raises my eyebrows, sartorially speaking. It didn't annoy me then that she chose to wear what she did; she didn't deal with clients and vendors and she did her job capably. And yet even if I had her gym-honed body I wouldn't have made the same fashion choices. I know that although we're all told from childhood that we're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, the real world has taught me that people inevitably do.

How we look -- all our outward characteristics whether or not we were born that way -- including how we dress, how we smell, how we carry ourselves -- influence how people perceive us, even if it may not seem fair. Maybe that's why only the youth use their looks to rebel against the establishment; once they become part of it they quickly learn that image can negatively impact their earning power and status.

Perception matters; perhaps that's why companies institute dress codes, although more attention is paid to the way women look. From the time we're in school, we are subjected to these rules more often and much more thoroughly than our male counterparts are. Our body parts are scrutinized: shoulders, cleavage, midriffs, thighs, and legs. Even at my workplace now, a store that joyfully celebrates women's sexuality, we're not allowed to reveal bare shoulders or wear skirts shorter than 4 inches above the knee. We can't wear leggings unless they're worn under a tunic top or dress. We're instructed that we can't wear "excessively tight, short or revealing clothing." Even the length of our fingernails is prescribed.

I've never violated a work dress code because I tend to be more covered up in general (although I don't understand how exposed upper arms interfere with productivity unless it's a safety issue). Even in my personal space I don't show a lot of skin, not because I'm afraid of what people may say or think but because I don't like to fidget with my clothing to make sure I'm not accidentally exposing my lady bits. I believe in dressing and adorning myself to look -- and thus, feel -- attractive, and I'm afraid that showing off my thighs and knees would only achieve the opposite goal. Once in a while, though, I will rock a low neckline and expose deep cleavage at night simply because I still can, and especially because it detracts the beholder's eye from other parts I'm not as proud of, such as my slackened jaw line and gentle muffin top.

And when I do, I'm offended if anyone would declare me as immoral and thus undeserving of basic decency and respect, and worse, claim that I'm "asking for it." There's no excuse for anyone to believe that a woman deserves to be disrespected or should expect to be violated or assaulted simply because of what she's wearing. There's no reason for that kind of behavior -- period. If a man sees a woman at a bar displaying all her goods, he's not a cad for getting turned on. He becomes one, however, if he treats her like a whore.

I read something recently on Inquirer.net, the online portal of a major daily Philippine newspaper. What drew my eye to it was the headline announcing the country as a potential fashion capital in the world, and that it was written by an esteemed economist and business leader. I realized quickly, to my horror, that his article had little to do with the state of the fashion industry in the Philippines; instead, it was a call for women to dress more modestly so as not to commit or encourage sin. He states:

Oftentimes, women who dress immodestly have no bad intentions of arousing males to think of them as sex objects. These women, however, can be accused of ignorance and naiveté. They fail to realize that there is a great difference between the psycho-sexual makeup of males and females. Women are ordinarily not attracted to the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. What appeal to them are such features as gentleness, affection and a caring attitude. Men are quite different. The physical attributes of the female body are quick to arouse them. Women who dress immodestly should, therefore, realize that they are occasions of sin for the males who look at them. For those who have the Christian faith, they should always remember what Christ said: He who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery.

Therefore, he says, strict dress codes should be implemented in universities and in Church, and also for specific events and ceremonies, including one's own wedding day:

It is ridiculous to see brides and their bridesmaids looking like they were going to the beach with their backs totally bare and breasts unnecessarily exposed. In fact, the concern for the modesty of the bride should be first and foremost a duty of the parents and, not to mention, the bridegroom who should be ashamed that his future wife is showing too much of what he alone has the right to see in the intimacy of the bedroom.

Men like this writer often profess to hold these views in order to protect women, when reality is that they are intimidated of our power and seek to control us. His phrase, "of what [the bridegroom] alone has the right to see in the intimacy of the bedroom" renders us as property of our husbands, instead of independent human beings with our own mind, body, and soul. It subjugates women by asking us to be the weaker sex and capitulate to the whims and weaknesses of men. By saying that we are not "attracted to the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex," he declares us to be asexual creatures, not requiring physical intimacy, of being damaged when we have sexual urges.

His message is also a potentially dangerous one because it insinuates that we are responsible for what sins might occur because of what we choose to wear. For him, men are inherently weak creatures and if we arouse them and they act accordingly -- whether we wish it or not -- then it's our fault completely. Not the men who couldn't take control of their own decisions and actions. Ours. This is the worst kind of misogyny, one that disguises itself under the benevolent cloak of concern and protection.

There's a difference between questioning a woman's common sense in wearing a skimpy outfit to work and declaring that she is immoral and sinful because she does. We know that whenever we squeeze into a snug miniskirt we are attracting attention, favorable or otherwise, from both men and women. What we should never be expected to assume, however, is that when we do it's okay for others to announce open season against us. Even when we may appear practically naked, our bodies are sacred and belong to us alone unless we choose to share it. Anyone who disagrees is the real danger to society -- not the one who decided how she wanted to dress before going out. Even when the size of our clothing is small, we are infinitely better than the one with the small mind.

 

 

Comments

[Katrina]

oh my GOD Gigi, that article! I think my blood pressure just shot up. I have no idea why opinions like that are allowed to air in the national broadsheet - legitimacy via proximity. Couple more thoughts before I spontaneously combust:
- Based on the "occasions of sin" phrasing and the email address, I suspect the writer is Opus Dei. Which is...well, my grandparents are part of that organization, so I'm not entirely surprised.
- I don't really agree with Slut Walks, but articles like this make me see the validity of doing stunts like that.

[Gigi]

Oh Katrina, what surprised me was that I haven't noticed any reaction/backlash to his piece. On one hand, maybe it's a good thing because it means no one really pays attention to what he has to say. On the other, however, I'm afraid that more people either agree with him or are afraid to speak out against this kind of nonsense!

I'm with you on the SlutWalks thing. I understand the anger and frustration that fuels it, of course I do. I think it's great that young women want to do something about this kind of "blame the victim" mentality. But I personally don't feel the need to reclaim the word "slut," just as I had no interest in doing the same for "bitch." I am a strong, independent, assertive, and powerful woman -- but I ain't no bitch. I'm also a sexual being but I'm not a slut, thank you very much. What's wrong with, say, "woman"? :)

PS: I suspected he was a member of Opus Dei, and someone else confirmed it for me. :)