As I mentioned to lovesong, it is the prerogative of every man, woman and child to observe their environment, to interpret it and to draw conclusions therefrom. Women and their dress make up part of a man's environment. He is consequently within his rights to interpret how she looks, walks, talks, eats and dresses as he sees fit. It is his inalienable right to do so - anyone attempting to deprive him of it is attempting to deprive him of his humanity. Anyone attempting to give power to a woman over men's interpretations of their environment (including women and their dress) is seeking to subordinate men to women and is not working for equality.
It is the individual man who decides which woman he finds worthy of consideration. It is the individual man who decides what attributes certain dress codes convey to him. It is not for the woman to decide - all she can do is understand it and then choose whether she cares or not.
I don't disagree. My concerns are not rooted in that which is innate. I'm not concerned by natural attraction. I've never faulted a man who wasn't sexually attracted to me because of my weight nor have I ever faulted anyone who has a natural inclination towards specific attributes. Natural inclination isn't a problem unless it's manifested in a way that is demeaning, harassing or yields discrimination. Overall, I don't have a problem with men or women having specific preferences as long such preferences do not result in women being held to a higher expectation than men or objectified for the benefit of others. This would go both ways, of course.
I will challenge your assertion that most people were not and are not (relatively) freely choosing their spouses on the basis of attraction. For example among my people the Zulus (who I'm sure count as particularly patriarchal by those of a feminist persuasion) the majority of marriages were of people who chose to marry each other. Men even had to be very adept at making poems and it was known that it could take up to a year to get a girl to accept you - and it was always the girls right to accept or reject any man. Now if we in our polygamy endorsing "patriarchal" culture were willing to let people choose their own relationships - I have no doubt most other cultures in the world allowed that too.
I should probably clarify. You said this:
Again you speak of yourself - I don't know you so I cannot speak of your circumstances that have caused or allowed you to believe you can reproduce without a man. What I am asserting is that whatever allows you to do this is likely not an option of the overwhelming majority of the world's women today - and it certainly was an option in the thousands of years of our worlds history.
To this, I answered as follows:
It would be dishonest to project as if attraction and reproductive choice were much of a factor when it came to mating within many world cultures throughout the years of history. Even within American history - and not too long ago - who you married was dictated moreso by social status than attraction. Look at modern day culture in various parts of the world now, where women are required by religion, law and familial construct to be subservient to men and often without choice.
Clearly, I agree that many were not and are not choosing their spouses based on attraction. Historically and presently, I've also pointed out, that there are women who weren't/aren't able to factor attraction into the equation as they are denied choice.
The principle is that, in general, the impressing comes before the courting. And therefore, the more people you impress the wider the options of the people you could potentially court.
Okay. That's certainly how it works for some people.
It is a male privilege to decide what they prefer women to wear - as much as it is women's privilege to decide what they prefer men to wear. It is up to the individual man or woman to decide whether they care to conform or adapt.
I'm discussing male privilege within the context of that which has an adverse impact on women.
We've already established that there's no fault in people having preferences or having opinions. The problem is when people impress those preferences upon others in a way that demeans or insinuates that they are less worthy of attraction or even respect.
You say this because your speak of attraction in a narrow sense. While men are certainly not required to spend an hour in front of the mirror to be considered attractive, they are often required to be financially and socially successful.
Recently on a radio show a guy called in and told how when he was in varsity it was hard for him to get with a varsity girl as many of them had their minds set on working guys with cars and money for cellphones and clothes. Thus he came to the realisation that to have a good chance with women he will have to make sure he works hard and makes a good amount of money.Thus women exercised their privilege by deciding that, even though they don't earn enough money to buy themselves a certain lifestyle, they can have it anyway by getting working (and sometimes married) men to do that for them. Men their age don't have such an option as readily (though there are some cougars) and so men are pressured by women to become financially successful - and so they realise that instead of becoming a teacher they should become a university professor, instead of becoming a mechanic they should become a mechanical engineer and instead of becoming a nurse they must become a doctor. This while their female peers feel no such pressure and are able to pursue the careers they are comfortable with, knowing that whatever they cannot get by themselves they will get through a man in the future.
So tell me who has the real privilege?
I understand that there are women who contribute to unfair expectations of men. In terms of dress and expectations, women face struggles that men rarely encounter. I'm not suggesting that a woman is incapable of sexually objectifying a man, but, the instances of men and mainstream society sexually objectifying women occurs far more frequently and is rooted in sexist and patriarchal systems.
If a man goes to an outdoor concert in a pair of shorts and removes his shirt, he isn't apt to be called a **** and shamed. If a woman wears something revealing, she's not only likely to be called a **** and shamed by men and women, she risks unwanted advances and commentary. which, too often has been justified because she chose to dress a certain way.
Men have the power if you care about what they think.
Remember that what constitutes attractiveness is different for men and women.
Right. The power that men have over women can be horribly imbalanced if men and women both don't speak out and push back against inequality and unfairness.
What constitutes attractiveness is different for each individual, but, again, there's a problem when such mindset becomes a standard or expectation that oppresses or objectifies another.
I would readily agree with you that in an ideal world people would make judgements about people based solely on who they are inside. The issue here is that no-one can read anyone else's mind. And because of this we are left to interpret a person's outward expressions for clues about who they are on the inside. And until such time as we overcome this inability to read minds, how a person convey's themselves to the public will always be used to judge what they are on the inside.
And sometimes dress is part of the qualification - the little things do matter.
I am asserting that there is no inequality in the right men have to decide how they interpret women's dress.
You can't make such claims and apply them as a blanket label. I know many people who feel quite differently, myself included. I judge people by their character first and foremost. I don't make a habit of judging people based upon outward appearance
as I consider this to be incredibly presumptuous and arrogant. That doesn't mean that I don't notice people or that people don't catch my eye. I'm human.
But, I do think that there are appropriate labels for those that do
rely excessively on outward appearance to influence decision making and perception. I call it shallowness and pretentiousness.
I've never asserted that there is inequality in the right of men to hold an opinion as to how a woman looks.
I'm asserting that there's a problem if a woman feels obligated or required to dress in a certain way to achieve life goals. I also, unlike you, acknowledge male privilege and the influence of patriarchy (and to an extent perhaps conservative matriarchal values) on the manner by which women choose to dress to feel of value and to impress others.
In regards to the workplace and dress - I do pause to consider cultural characteristics displayed by a person whenever I draw a conclusion about outward presentation. If one embraces and cares to understand diversity and inclusiveness, it's imperative I think, for one to advocate for such consideration.
