The semantics of clothing

Time to come out and admit it: I own more than 50 pairs of shoes.

Oh, I don't wear most of them most of the time. Like anyone else, I have a handful of pairs in heavy rotation, the sneakers, sandals, and saddle shoes. But the special secret stash of high heels stored in the coat closet is enough to make any gasp. And yet, whenever I have cause to dress up, I often find myself wondering why it is I just don't have the right pair of shoes.

To make an ugly situation uglier, I own three dressers, an armoire, and our bedroom has his-and-hers-style closets. He gets the armoire and the his side of the closets. Everything else is overflowing, even though I'm slowly trying to get rid of some of the stuff I don't wear anymore. I don't wear make-up during the day, and at night I usually wear just a little concealer, a touch of eyeshadow, and maybe lipstick. But on the occassion I just gotta embrace the full-force of eyeliner, blush, etc. Even in more casual settings, I do tend to wear girlie stuff alot of the time--my friends, especially the guys, would still describe me as a tomboy.

I thought the merging of queer theory and feminist theory's takes on gender and its meanings finally quashed forever the hand-wringing over lipstick feminism. Gender is a smorgasboard of options, if you want it to be. If I wear a skirt and it makes me feel sexy, then what's the harm? If someone thinks I'm dumb because I'm wearing cutie-pie fashions, then he/she quickly gets corrected. But few people automatically equate pretty clothes with stupidity anymore(and those who do are cruising for a shot on the "retro" side of this list).

But I got a little cold water splashed in my face recently on the issue, though. Apparently, what women wear is still a big deal.

It disturbs me when I see women and men walking about in clothes which accentuates their sexual selves; most especially young girls. I am not a prude; sex is a beautiful way of expressing love.

Such a broad definition of immodest--clothes that draw attention to one's sexual self. Of course, all clothes draw attention to one's sexual self. Clothing choices is a semantic issue, and one of the things that clothing comments on always is the sex of the wearer. If you deliberately dress "modestly", you are still making a comment about your sexuality, that it is something you wish to "hide". Is there any clothing that draws attention more to sexuality than the burqua? When a woman dons a burqua, the meaning is clear--a woman's sexuality is so shameful that the woman herself must be hidden away.

Even modest clothes that try to say "private" instead of "shameful" still draw attention to the sexuality of the wearer. Religious dress codes that accentuate female modesty often have traditional justifications like "this part of my body (hair, legs, cleavage, etc.) should be seen only by my husband". But that is objectifying a woman just as much as the mini-skirt, if not more. By covering her hair, legs, whatever for this reason a woman is telling the world that her husband is protective of what is "his" and doesn't want to be sharing it with the whole wide world.

La Lubu in the comments at Feministe puts it perfectly:

See, we still receive the cultural messages that our body is not right...that it is something to be ashamed of. I still think that the point of "modest" clothing is to completely hide the female form. Again, this is the flip side of the hypersexualized view...the idea that the female form, and not societal attitudes toward it, is what needs to be focused on. Two sides. Same coin.

Some of the women in the comments section tried to dodge the whole issue by focusing on the practicality of clothing--wear what's comfortable, and ignore the social dictates. Well, I'm most comfortable in a pair of boxer shorts and a sports bra, but I don't wear that everywhere I go. Like it or not, what you wear speaks to people about your take on sex and sexuality. Instead of trying to dodge the issue, I try to control it. Look sexy when I want to be sexy, don't bother if I don't want attention. Clothes are your costume in the world's play.

Astarte had an interesting take on the whole issue. I am having trouble cutting and pasting, and I'm lazy, so I'll just paraphrase what she said. She was upset by seeing a young woman in one of those handkerchief shirts that expose the whole back and belly and can't be worn with a bra. She didn't like seeing the girl's boyfriend ogle her as she walked. She wondered why the girl felt compelled to dress to please him. This one sentence particularly struck me (so I'll type it out):

Is she and object or a person, is she looked at as the act of sex, or is she looked at as a human being?

The either/or phrasing of this sentence made me really uncomfortable. For all we know, this girl's boyfriend is a real dick and doesn't see his girlfriend as a human being, but just as a sex object. But if that's the case, odds are he'd think that way regardless of what she wore. If she is in fact dressing that way in order to get the attention of a man who would disdain her if she didn't dress a certain way, then that sucks and she needs to get some self-esteem, of course. But I don't see how that's any different than a woman who slaps on the veil or a long skirt because the men she's trying to please want to assert their ownership over her with enforced modesty.

In the situation that Astarte describes, there's no way to know if the two individuals are stuck in a dysfunctional relationship where she is debasing herself and he is objectifying her, or if they are a happy, mature couple who's just having a good time. God knows I've decided to wear certain clothes before simply to make my boyfriend's eyes bug out, just to have some fun. It's insulting to suggest that he doesn't regard me as a full human being because I wore something that turns him on. Because some people are fucked up and can't handle a woman's sexuality doesn't debase her as a person doesn't mean the rest of us should have our behavior constrained. Because once you start imposing limits on what those of us who are mature enough to understand that a woman can both be sexual and a full human being, just because some men don't get that, you are trotting into Taliban territory.

Sad, inadequate men who use women's sexuality against them are a big problem, there's no doubt about it. And this problem cannot be attacked sideways by trying to mold female behavior just to frustrate the urges of these men to debase women. Feminists learn this and forget it and have to relearn it over and over again. In the 80's, an outpouring of feminist anger over debasing pornography drove some feminists to cooperate with the right wing crusade against sex itself. Result? The right was able to consolidate even more power which was then turned on ALL women, not just those who work in pornography. We are still fighting to regain the ground lost and some women are beginning to make noises all over again about the things that girls wear and modesty and the right wing is only too happy to use these feelings and turn them against the cause of women's rights.

The best book I've ever read that illustrates this condudrum is The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. The book is brilliant and pointed, particularly in the way that fate deals with each of the female characters. One after another, the female characters' good intentions are used by the patriarchy against women themselves. The one that's most obvious is the wife that Offred lives with, who was one of those conservative women that is always out writing books, appearing on TV, and making speeches exhorting women to go back to the house. After the revolution, of course, she gets what she claimed she always wanted, utter submission to home and husband, and she is miserable. (Atwood makes you pay for your feelings of schadenfreunde, so watch out.) Offred's mother, who unintentionally helped consolidate right wing power by joining the anti-pornography cause for feminist reasons is sent to a work camp. Offred herself, who is portrayed as the average woman who rejects feminism as "man-hating", is unable to understand what's going on when her rights are stripped from her one by one. Women's fear of sexual assault and anger over being debased for their sexuality are used against women to persuade them into believing that being inside the house is somehow freeing. Women are told that they are protected from rape, but there is no such thing as consensual sex anymore at all.

And even after everything in our whole society is flipped upside down, one thing stays the same. The handmaids, like all women, are dressed "modestly", covered head to toe. But they are also dressed in red, making them scarlet women. Men stare at them on the sidewalk, and all sorts of sexual fantasies are projected on them, as they are projected on the mysterious women hidden away in harems. Their clothes are "modest" but they have absolutely no control.

All a long, drawn-out way to say that all clothes have sexual symbolism, for men and for women. (What is it they say about a guy in a uniform?) Some clothes are distasteful, definitely. (I hate those handkerchief shirts, too.) But to take a personal distaste in clothing and try to extend a philosophical argument about modesty is troubling at best, as there's no way to avoid just heaping more sexual objectification on a woman who you're trying to "free" from sexual objectification. It's tempting, but as far as I can see, there's just no way to tell a woman that allowing people to see the shape of her thigh or her breast or her back without telling her that said body part is either shameful or not hers to show if she likes.

Edited to add: And if I can irritate people like this by wearing whatever the hell I want, even if it means going braless in a tight shirt, well, I'll take one for the team.