Why do women put up with men who look like slobs

[ChrisM]

Hello Em: Funny that, we just missed each other. We have lived in Kitsap County for the past ten years (East Bremerton & Silverdale) but have just moved to Orcas Island. My mother in law runs one of the antique malls in downtown Port Orchard.

I have worn my skirts in various shops in Silverdale, and on many a ride on the airporter to SeaTac (see the oft-repeated comments here about the comfort of skirts for travel.)

Errr...the point of this message? Well, none really. Just a sort of "hi there neighbor" greeting.

Chris

[AMM]

God, it's nice to know you can make it on your own!

There's a lot to be said for getting yourself to the point where you know you can make it without a spouse to support you (whether economically or emotionally.) For one thing, you suddenly become more interesting to MOTAS (Members Of The Appropriate Sex), because you seem less easily obtainable.

You are also interesting to a higher class of MOTAS. For instance, a man who has his life together is not going to be interested in a woman who mainly wants someone to step in and "fix" her unmanageable life. In Bob Dylan's words: "someone to close his eyes for you" (Been there, done that )

Finally, there's something to be said for not living with that aching sense of need. I've been separated for over three years now, and I've finally come the point that I feel that my life will be quite OK if I never have an intimate relationship with a woman again. It would be nice to have one, but I have plenty to do and plenty to enjoy and plenty of accomplishments in my life to satisfy my sense of self-worth. I don't need to take the first available bearer of two X chromosomes to make my life bearable or worth living.

I also find I can enjoy being around women more now that I'm not constantly wondering if they would be a suitable SO.

[BrotherTailor]

As far as I can recall, hip-huggers were one of the bastard child fashions born of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. They were usually worn to expose part of the belly and were not as extreme as todays examples.

All this came about in the era of Twiggy and the genesis of the slab sided look.

I recall, at the time making a hipster wrap around mini skirt and a tie front short blouse.

However, the hipsters at the time were only low enough to ride at the top of the hip and show off a very trim waist.

Riding at the TOP of the hip, and showing off a TRIM waist is perfectly fine with me. I see no problem with playing around with waistband heights...emphasis on WAIST. What I object to are the jeans that neatly dissect the hips on the apex..almost showing things that ought not be seen on the front; and/or the above with a flabby abdomen, whether under a shirt or not, bulging way over. This is not a pointing of fingers at flabby abdomens, it is just saying that there are ways to conceal them...not to show them off.

I've seen lots of pics from the 60's and what I really like are the high waist jeans at the natural waist, and simply raise the shirt hemline if you wish to expose some midriff. I'm not a prude.

Here's another theory: The waist of a woman is almost the first thing we tend to notice as men, "that which her slender waist confines...etc", and so we will see a woman with a visible "roll" and our brain automatically registers "overweight" and we then use that initial analysis to judge every other aspect of her. If we see a woman with a tight waist in proportion to the rest of her body, we automatically register "slender" or fit or however we word it, and we use that initial impression to judge her. SO - this is why a woman can be a bit heavy in the hips and elsewhere and yet still pull off a powerfully sexual image if her waistline gives the first impression of thinness. Most men want curves not thinness. Narrowing the waist, either physically or visually, produces this desirable image. Conversely, transferring the "waistline" to the widest part of the hip or thereabouts is deliberately highlighting the very widest part on most women's figures. The first place our eyes wander is to the waist and we see this muffintop image and rolls of babyfat....and we are turned off.

So waist lines are a marker that define a great deal of how we wish to be perceived and who we are. This can be played with through clothing and corsetting (or diet if need be) and I think works for both sexes. Some men find a little tummy on a woman attractive, as long as everything else remains relative and in proportion. I've seen some definitely hot plus size women as well, but they have to work that much harder to pull the look off than their skinny cousins.

[AMM]

To continue in the ruminations from my last post in this thread:

I was sitting on a bench on Broadway (in NYC) engaging in one of my favorite occupations last night -- woman-watching (the PC version of the old expression "girl watching" ), especially woman-in-skirt-watching -- and I was noticing how many of the women in skirts (and even some in trousers) were dressed so their movements made them look a little helpless or weak. High heels (not at all practical when walking around Manhattan), tight skirts, clothes that required a lot of attention when walking, purses that occupy one hand or arm with making sure they don't fall, etc.

I noticed that I found these women attractive, but this "attractiveness" was really that they aroused my protective impulses.

And I realized that, at least in my part of the world, a large part of what we associate with "femininity" is basically helplessness: a "feminine" woman is, to a large extent, a helpless female who needs a strong man to protect and take care of her. And maybe also someone who has never really grown up: in TV and movies, a woman who is really a little girl looking for a Daddy is presented as cute and desirable, while a man who is really a little boy looking for a mommy is presented as ridiculous and contemptible.

So maybe these women in Kitsap County are just buying into the prevailing idea of femininity: don't grow up, just look cute and helpless and wait for your Prince Charming to come along and take you to his fairy-tale castle.

+ + + + +

To make this relevant to Men in Skirts:

I'm not particularly wild about this sort of "femininity" even in women. I admit it "arouses" me, at least in the protective way, but I can't say that I'd really want to live with someone who I constantly had to look out for.

But in a man -- specifically, in myself -- I have no desire to act helpless or dress to look helpless. It doesn't fit with my idea of what it is to be a man (or anyone else's.) And I think that's why I've never had the slightest desire to wear high heels, tight skirts, etc. And even though I kind of like the look of floor-length skirts, I would never actually wear anything outside my home that was so long I had to lift it up in order to walk up or down stairs. The same goes for skirts so short you have to sit and walk funny in order to not "flash" people -- fun to wear at home, maybe, but not to wear in public.

[Pythos]

You all seem to have forgotten one reason men usually do not dress nicely.

There is the stygma (inaccurate one) that a well groomed man (one that takes more care of himself than other men) is thought of as having homosexual tendencies.

I personally think this is a crock, but just look at advertisements, or the media. The flamboyant, or outgoing, well dressed guy is usually the "token homosexual"

This is very rampant now a days.

It is also sad.

Guys that have an interest in personal style, "must be gay" and gaydar pings at the site of them.

Of course this is BS. My two gay male friends have absolutely no interest in fashion, or style. They dress like every other male.

There are just too many assumptions that are wrong in our culture, and no one tries to prove them wrong.

[Pythos]

Amm, all that you post about feminine fahions making them seem helpless, I personally think everyone should experience often.

I have always thought that skirt flipping in young years would fade away, if boys wore skirts in elementary school. Cause they wouldn't like it done to them, so they should not want to do it to others.

Men should experience the work high heels actually are to wear, along with some (not all) tight skirts. That way perhaps they wouldn't demand their woman wear clothes like that, or would join the party and wear such along with her (I like that outcome better)

All men should experience the work it takes to put on a pair of pantyhose properly, and wear only a skirt over the hose, and having only the hose, skirt, and shoes being what is worn below the waist. In some aspects you do feel vulnerable, but not always.

Tight skirts you seem to not like. I love them. Hobble skirts on the other hand, annoy me, as do overly high (F**k me) high heeled shoes. I don't like those except for the skill involved in wearing them and not falling flat on your face, and wear them with some grace.

I think if men had the choice to wear skirts, some would. Most wouldn't. Se la vi. But they would understand what women go through to wear such things.

[Peter v]

Amm, all that you post about feminine fahions making them seem helpless, I personally think everyone should experience often.

I have always thought that skirt flipping in young years would fade away, if boys wore skirts in elementary school. Cause they wouldn't like it done to them, so they should not want to do it to others.

Men should experience the work high heels actually are to wear, along with some (not all) tight skirts. That way perhaps they wouldn't demand their woman wear clothes like that, or would join the party and wear such along with her (I like that outcome better)

All men should experience the work it takes to put on a pair of pantyhose properly, and wear only a skirt over the hose, and having only the hose, skirt, and shoes being what is worn below the waist. In some aspects you do feel vulnerable, but not always.

Tight skirts you seem to not like. I love them. Hobble skirts on the other hand, annoy me, as do overly high (F**k me) high heeled shoes. I don't like those except for the skill involved in wearing them and not falling flat on your face, and wear them with some grace.

I think if men had the choice to wear skirts, some would. Most wouldn't. Se la vi. But they would understand what women go through to wear such things.

Great thinking, Pythos, why not make it standard in the school curriculum?
To wear women's clothing, for some time, so as to know what other clothing possibilities there are, and appreciate what women do, also practically removing the thought that men who wear skirts and frilly things are sick, or whatever. As well as to learn basic (survival) skills as kooking, sewing and so on. That way men would be able to understand women better, and there may be another bennefit, bieing that many young men would realise the potential of wearing other clothes that just the well known "men's" clothes.
Learning, that's what school is for?

Peter v.

[crfriend]

Great thinking, Pythos, why not make it standard in the school curriculum?
To wear women's clothing, for some time, so as to know what other clothing possibilities there are, and appreciate what women do, also practically removing the thought that men who wear skirts and frilly things are sick, or whatever.

Concerning the wording of the above thesis, I must politely take umbrage. Here we are trying to remove the gender "distinction" of skirted garments in Western civilisation -- the above would only serve to reinforce it and, hence, would be counterproductive vis-a-vis knocking the "barrier" down. Whilst it's certainly an honourable thing to "walk in another's shoes", requiring that cheapens it and simply reinforces the stereotypes, both of which, I'll submit, are pernicious.

There's some logic behind Pythos' argument, but again it's displayed as "feeling what the other sex does", and that also perpetuates the stereotype. I feel that me must move beyond the constraints that some forms of garb are "female only" and others are "male only" (other than those items which are specifically engineered for the needs of a particular sex).

As well as to learn basic (survival) skills as [c]ooking, sewing and so on. That way men would be able to understand women better, and there may be another bennefit, bieing that many young men would realise the potential of wearing other clothes that just the well known "men's" clothes.

Basic life skills really should be taught at home, and from a very early age. The sad thing, though, is that many families don't have the time to pass those skills along to their children due to the pressures of jobs and whatnot. Things like cooking and basic sewing skills are always useful to know, but I don't know that teaching them in school is really best.

[AMM]

Guys that have an interest in personal style, "must be gay" and gaydar pings at the site of them.

"Gaydar" refers to a sense that gay men have, not straight men. In particular, it refers to a sense that someone who does not appear gay, and whom straight people would never guess was gay, is, in fact, gay.

I don't think that even straight men really believe that a man with an interest in personal style is necessarily gay. But the accusation of being gay is a whip that straight men use to keep other straight men in line. I remember as a child being called "queer" (meaning homosexual) or even a "fag" by other boys. I don't think they really thought I was homosexual (even assuming they even had any idea what it meant); it was just a way of humiliating anybody who dared to look, act, or think differently from the pack.

While I didn't like the way they called me "queer", mostly because of the ostracism and tormenting that accompanied it, I never felt threatened by the idea of being queer/gay/homosexual. It's not who I am, but most of the people I know who are are pretty admirable people who I would not be ashamed to be associated with.

[AMM]

Amm, all that you post about feminine fahions making them seem helpless, I personally think everyone should experience often.

I have always thought that skirt flipping in young years would fade away, if boys wore skirts in elementary school. Cause they wouldn't like it done to them, so they should not want to do it to others.

Men should experience the work high heels actually are to wear, along with some (not all) tight skirts. That way perhaps they wouldn't demand their woman wear clothes like that,...

I think you are ignoring how deeply social roles affect people's behavior.

Women wear fashions that make them look (relatively) helpless because they want to see themselves as helpless, and such fashions help them express this. You won't get them to willingly change how they dress until they change how they feel about themselves. And they want to see themselves as helpless because they have built their "identity" -- that is, idea of who they are -- upon certain ideas of what a woman "really" is. Unless and until they have developed their identity past these ready-made social roles, to ask them to give up this feminine helplessness is to ask them to give up the only self they have. You might as well be asking them to commit suicide.

It's the same thing that Emerald Witch noticed: you can't get the women who keep taking back the same old jerks to stop doing so until they develop an identity that can be complete without a man.

The same thing goes for the men. Boys aren't flipping skirts because they don't know how unpleasant it is. They do it because they do know how unpleasant it is. They do equally unpleasant things to one another. They do it because being "male" is essential to their idea of who they are, and picking on others -- proving that you can do things to them whether they like it or not -- is a large part of the male social role that they have been taught. Even when acting "male" makes them miserable, as it often does in later life, they can't give it up, because they have no idea who they would be or how to act if they weren't acting "male." Only after they have grown an identity that is larger than these social roles can they consider giving up some of these behaviors.

Women wear high heels and makeup and pantyhose and other complicated and uncomfortable "feminine" clothes, to the extent they do, not because their men require it, but because "being a woman" to them means wearing such clothes, at least some of the time. And if anyone is demanding that they dress this way, it is almost always other women who are doing so. It's not that society at large condemns the alternatives, the way it condemns men who wear skirts. It's the women's own identity and the group identity of the women in their support networks.

In the same way, most men won't consider wearing skirts, not because they wouldn't be comfortable, and in many cases even if they know from experience how comfortable it can be, because it's so incompatible with their idea and their friends' idea of who they are, which is mainly drawn from society's male social roles.

In my part of the country, a large fraction of the female population can not imagine going out in public without "putting their face on." Now there are still plenty of women who go around without any make-up at all, so they must have evidence that the world would not end if they went out with their face "au natural". But having make-up on is essential to their idea of who they are, which is to say, their idea of what a woman is. If a woman grows up in a community where the women are like this, she has to grow beyond her community's idea of what a woman is, and maybe grow beyond anything her community can understand or accept, before she can give up obligatory make-up.

[sapphire]

[WHAT ?!?!?!?!?

I find this post totally reprehensible, offesive, lacking in sensitivity and ignorant of women's social history.

Women wear fashions that make them look (relatively) helpless because they want to see themselves as helpless

What century did you drag that up from? I have NEVER Felt that way or VOLUNTARILY dressed that way. I HAVE been FORCED to wear clothing that I felt was degrading and that caused physical and lifelong iinjury because my "owner" required it.

And they want to see themselves as helpless because they have built their "identity" -- that is, idea of who they are -- upon certain ideas of what a woman "really" is.

WRONG! That is something that has been shoved down women's throats for centuries, both from social norms to the abuse that they endure from their "owners" Or are you unaware that until fairly recently in western history, women were legally considered property and still are in some parts of the world?

Women wear high heels and makeup and pantyhose and other complicated and uncomfortable "feminine" clothes, to the extent they do, not because their men require it, but because "being a woman" to them means wearing such clothes

B*LLF*CK*NGSH*T Societal norms, written and unwritten dress codes and the demands of their "owners" all contribute to the pressure women face to feel accepted, keep their jobs and keep their homes.

But having make-up on is essential to their idea of who they are

Just where did you get THAT idea?



I'm offended sir, deeply, deeply offended.[/i][/b]

[BrotherTailor]

Not being a lettered scholar on women's history, I can't comment in that sense, but I thought AMM's post was moderate, thoughtfully put, and reflected an honest expression of his own observations. I neither agree or disagree with any of what has been shared.

We have to be willing to allow differing opinions to exist. Not everyone reads life the same... We are not thinking of you sapphire, or Emerald, or any particular woman when we jot down our musings. Please don't take it personally.

If we cannot express these things on here in safety without getting blown up at twice a week in bold red text and cursing, then where can we go as men to talk about gender issues, and how they relate to our skirt wearing? If we are never allowed to "get it wrong" without getting our head chopped off, then how is that any different than a man feeling ashamed to wear a skirt for fear he will "get it wrong" and be ridiculed and scorned? At some point we simply have to be ourselves. If skirt wearing and the freedom to talk about it entails earning a PhD in women's rights and suffrage, then I think that pretty well eliminates all us ordinary joe's who pump gas, and drive trucks, and drive bulldozers and etc.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just wondering when the loose cannon will swivel toward me if I express an opinion not 100% historically accurate and politically correct?

[Sarongman]

Maybe, just maybe, both views are correct to a degree. I do believe that Sapphires has more currency in today's world. Most women I know are competent, proud and very independent. I have known women who hold big rig semi trailer licences, rallied 4WDs in the outback, others who farm in all types of farm pursuits, shoot fullbore rifle, ride Harleys etc. Nobody could accuse Helen Clark, New Zealand's Prime Minister, or Hilary Clinton, U.S. Presidential hopeful of being helpless!! There are, unfortunately, a few, a very few, who make a profession of being "helpless waifs" and, while young, this may work but, as they grow older, the little girl effect becomes a travesty.

[Bob]

The degree to which women choose a live of submission, vs. are forced into it, is a difficult question. I'm glad to see honest discussion on the subject. What makes me sad is that even in today's world, I see a surprising number of women who seem to choose a life as "little girl" --- and I also see a surprising number of men who demand it. I think the "you won't get married if you don't act this way" thing is very powerful.

[Pythos]

The "you won't get married unless you act this way" goes both ways, in too many cases.

One way that is quite cogent with this site is women not dating a guy because of the clothes he wears.

There is much more to write, but I have little time today.

Safire, I agree with most of what you say. Some here do not recall that men in the past wore complicated and to an extent uncomfortable clothing for quite a while. (I don't concider hose, and skirt any where near as uncomfortable as tight jeans. High heels below a certain height are practical, it's just the really tall ones that are stupid)