In keeping with our class' recent discussion of feminism, I decided to read Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex." The work uncovers the paternalistic assumptions behind feminine "mystery," but it also seems prophetic in its account of men's perceptions of women in power. De Beauvoir writes, "Woman's dress in becoming practical need not make her appear sexless: on the contrary, short skirts made the most of legs and thighs as never before. There is no reason why working should take away woman's sex appeal."
Today I made a trip with my roommate to the mall, and we walked through various women's clothing stores, including my personal favorites: Express and The Limited. Both of these stores cater to today's working woman because they include racks upon racks of matching suits with blazers, dress pants, and skirts. To me, these stores embody class combined with youth.
However, these stores also emphasize another attribute: sexiness. Express' website proclaims a sale on "Sexy Basics." The model on the Limited's website leers at the camera, which takes note of the woman's curves-- from head to toe. The Limited also sells overpriced fishnet tights. Scandalous! Especially when paired with high heels!
While I can find plenty of beautiful clothes in these stores that allow me to maintain my self-respect, it's clear from the stores' merchandise that the granddaughter of de Beauvoir's "working woman" should have sex appeal.
But why? I believe that de Beauvoir would argue that women desire this sexiness because 21st century culture still serves men. While we may feel better when we are dressed up in our high heels, short skirts, and clingy tops, our feelings result from societal constructs. Seeing women in sexy business clothes gives men carnal satisfaction. So while women contend that they have asserted themselves in the workplace, perhaps fashion undermines that achievement. Perhaps we still have a long way to go in the pursuit of beautiful, yet respect-inspiring fashion.
Meanwhile, I continue to sift through the clearance racks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great observations, Karen. I especially love that you are both doing the extra reading and that you are seeing applications for this stuff in the world outside the classroom. Barthes--and Crystal Downing!--might say that you were doing an ad hoc semiotic study of women's fashions. Indeed, clothing is for us a kind of sign--an idea that in literary criticism goes at least back to Carlyle's Sartor Resartus if not before. That is clothes are language, and what is that language telling us. It's always been intriguing to me that women have to have suits while men aren't expected to have dresses.
Post a Comment