WAIT...what about equality AMONG women? It's not fair that some women can wear the mini skirt and stillettos and be admired, when if I wore the same thing I would be villified (50 years old and overweight). All women should be forced to wear the same thing. Burqas for all!

Now that's empowering! ;-)

I wear Kilts, is it unfair that I get to wear Bifurcated and Unbifurcated garments when I go out and they only? get to wear short unbifurcated ones?

peace

I would not pick a small sample of women/men at a night club as evidence for gender inequality. That is ridiculous and insulting to the topic.

Say it with me: "Feminism was created to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

And this is how they do it - by convincing hot women that they are being taken advantage of and they shouldn't show off their assets. This worked for the first generation that was exposed to it. Not so much the second. They decided they like sex too much.

In my clubbing days I never wore stilettos. I was a Doc Martins and minis kinda gal. Always wore a coat, too, 'cause I had a friend in the coat check who I trusted. Damn I miss those days! Of course, I danced by myself most of the time, or with girlfriends, 'cause most of the guys in the goth clubs were gay....

Doesn't she know that some men DO wear miniskirts and heels?

This is an example of how equity is mistaken for equality and equality is mistaken for equivalence.

How much do you wanna bet that Dr. Davis-Haynes has never been inside one of these clubs that she so disparages? If she had she'd know that it may be freezing outside but it's about 90 degrees on the dance floor. It's a trade-off between cold in line for 15 minutes versus being sweaty and miserable inside for 3 hours. I'm assuming that the women described have figured this out and are dressing accordingly. Perhaps we should get a men's rights activist up here to protest that men are supposed to wear jeans and long sleeve shirts in overheated clubs whereas women get away with comfy and breathable minidresses. Where is the equity???

What a miserable example. The women are competing with each other, the last thing they're looking for at the time is gender equity.

As for the men--I just keep getting this image from American Psycho, where a group of men are showing off their business cards, outdoing each other with the thickness of the card, shade of beige, font-style...it almost drives the title character into an envious killing rage right there.

And the cards all looked pretty much alike. (After awhile, so do the girls at the clubs.)

the equity is right where it's always been. There For The Taking. there are no fashion police forcing short skirts on anyone. If you want to wear pants, it's your perogative. IF the guy that you have the hots for doesn't like women in pants... well that's his loss, right? Isn't it the women inside that WEF is pushing? Then from their perspective the only guy worth being with will be one that doesn't care what she is wearing. QED. You can't force guys to accept that, or they will be inauthentic.

Doesn't all that amazing person stuff have to come from within? On the part of both parties? If that's the case, you can't force acceptance.

Unless you don't particularly care about amazing humanity stuff coming from within men, and are more interested in who can be forced to accept what.

Who's definition of equity is that? ...oh, wait.

As a side note? It's pretty rare for me to see women in anything but pants of some sort. Even in bars, I don't see them much, though I don't go to the totally happnin' trendy nightclubs, so maybe I am missing something.

Dear All! Despite the fact that each of you have just commented on a random bit of information which does not fully inform the intricacies of my lecture nor the organizational goals of the WEF, we still invite each of you to join my lecture which actually looks at the historic and current challenges faced by women (even the most empowered) along the lines of beauty.

The tag line was geared to get people talking (which we achieved)and hopefully in the seats and now we look forward to discussing with you the "meat and potatoes" of the issue.

See you all on the 19th,
KDH

so, dear KDH...
is what we have said UNTRUE. Are you saying that it is just such a complicated topic that your little blurb has been misconstrued? Or were you trolling?

How you choose your point of departure speaks volumes about the message you are trying to convey.

And please note that you are speaking to the world here, not people who live close enough to show up at your little shindig... so be clear.

"we still invite each of you to join my lecture which actually looks at the historic and current challenges faced by women (even the most empowered) along the lines of beauty. "

Will there be cute students in short skirts attending the lecture? Otherwise I'm not interested ;)

Will there be sandwiches served?

I think Amy deserves a thank-you from these ladies for the free advertising.

Why is it that the women who speak so often about finding equality and empowerment are also the most likely to make it appear that they are undeserving or incapable of managing of either?

Its almost as if they're actually trying to make sure men do not take women seriously.

Hi, K. Davis-Hayes, Ph.D.!

I don't know much about your career, so I have to ask.

Have you captained the San Diego State women's basketball team, obtained an International Pilots License as a member of The 99's (and used it!), got your teaching certificate from the state of California, raised 5 kids, and run two successful businesses in CA and FL despite a lack of support from bankers, who would and could ignore you, clear up through the '80s?

Mom did. She once got a ride back to the house from the Grand Hawaiian Hotel with Johnny Weissmueller back in the day. It wasn't because of "gender equity".

If this is you, I appreciate your achievements in academia, but I think your best work lies ahead - and outside the performance arts, however seriously educators take things.

Because everything I've seen credits living life on the outside, where you must eat what is set before you, more than most classroom material. It's a start.

I wonder who provided that blurb, if it is just a "random bit of information which does not fully inform the intricacies" of the lecture. Any subject that has to be advertised as having intricacies is probably bullshit, in my opinion.

"Empowerment" is for victims. There are plenty of true victims in our society, but victimhood as a worldview or underlying philosophy is limiting.

I'm a lifelong liberal and feminist and I refuse to be defined by the many idiots who use those terms these days.

KDH:

I have two questions:

1) Was the promotional material intentionally disingenuous, or unintentionally badly written?

2) Your comment above lands with me as being smug and presumptuous; am I misreading your tone?

I've been reading Amy's work for several years, on the east coast. I'm going to be in LA at the time of the lecture. I was considering attending. I'm a self-described feminist, and I often find Amy's work thought provoking. I especially appreciate her frequent reliance on research. If the tone and approach used in the public relations material are consistent with what is likely to come across from representatives of your department at the event, I'll pass in favor of something with more integrity and rigor.

Thank you,

I liked the subtle dig--

"Despite the fact that each of you have just commented on a random bit of information which does not fully inform the intricacies of my lecture nor the organizational goals of the WEF, we still invite each of you"

So we're invited even if we ARE naughty.

Anyway, it's still a poor example to prompt people to go to a talk, even if it was calculated 'to get people talking'. I guess our 'talking' wasn't along the expected (party) lines...

Now, if all that was sold for women to wear was skin-tight mini skirts and stilettos, when men had an array of clothing to choose from, I'd say she had a point about her 'tag line'. From here, to those not steeped in feminist academia, it's just not all that compelling.

Those women in the mini-skirts and excessive boobage should be rounded up and made to attend :-D

"Mom did."

She sounds wonderful. Where there's a will there's a way, and there always has been.

On one hand you have these lists of women's accomplishments in America online, starting from the 1600-somethings 'First woman business owner 1640'or some such 'First woman member of Congress' etc but on the other hand you have the claims of American women being 'oppressed by the Patriarchy' and bereft of their rights.

I wish they'd make up their minds...

Equity? I wonder how much money I have blown over the years on tight skirts....and oh, they so care about me now.

I was fortunate enough to be raised with 3 sisters and no brothers. As the only male child in our family, I developed a deep and enduring admiration for women. Sure, I lust after them. But that instinctive yearning is moderated by sincere respect and goodwill.

Hello All,

Thank you kindly for your comments and questions. To clarify, maybe I should give some background. When the founders of the Women's Empowerment Foundation set upon planning a lecture series for 2011, they invited me and other women (both professional and academic) to brainstorm about possible topics. Our discussion ranged from International Women's Rights issues (our launch focused upon the violations endured by women in the Congo and featured international women's rights advocate Rose Mapendo-http://mapendonewhorizons.org/) to the unfortunate stratification of the genders based upon wage inequity.

Within this discussion, we also discussed the role of beauty culture and the pressures young women face in the area of balancing their equitable experiences in the modern world with the ongoing feeling that they need to sexually impress their male counterparts at all cost. With this, I told the story of teaching the "Politics of Race, Class and Gender" at Purdue University.

During one of our discussions, young women insisted that there was no longer a need to campaign for gender equity because it had already been achieved in every way. From there I queried, "then why do I still see so many of you standing outside of the bars in town in the dead of winter (note winter in Indiana can dip to 20 below freezing) with nothing but a mini skirt, a halter top, and stilettoes while your male dates are wrapped from head to toe in weather appropriate attire? An equitable environment might imply that rational people would wear coats and scarves (as many were wearing that day)and that attraction would stem from both your good looks, winning personality and good sense." This seemed to stump many of them and even some of the young men came to me later to say they never considered that they took for granted that the young women in their worlds risk health and safety in the name of "being sexy."

The women of the foundation felt the story resonated on a variety of levels. Though this story reflected the thoughts of undergraduates between the age of 18-22, it represented the experiences of many women in the name of beauty. Even I must confess that this past New Year's Eve is the first that did not include high heels and a beautiful dress that would leave me shivering in Los Angeles in January.

As an academic with a background in studying beauty culture and the ways it manifests itself differently along the lines of race, my lecture will explore the challenges and sometimes deadly lengths women will go in the name of beauty and acceptance.

The tagline for my lecture is an excellent introduction to a myriad of topics and the presentation will be interactive. Feel free to attend and share your thoughts.

Many thanks to Amy Alkon for creating this space for each of us to discuss this topic of interest.

one word (or two) bullshit. Overeducated idiots with nothing better to do than prove they got their money's worth out of their PHD's

K. Davis-Hayes, Ph.D. says:

"From there I queried, "then why do I still see so many of you standing outside of the bars in town in the dead of winter (note winter in Indiana can dip to 20 below freezing) with nothing but a mini skirt, a halter top, and stilettoes while your male dates are wrapped from head to toe in weather appropriate attire? An equitable environment might imply that rational people would wear coats and scarves (as many were wearing that day)and that attraction would stem from both your good looks, winning personality and good sense.""

While on the surface this might appear to be a decent argument, it fails on a variety of levels. The most important of these is that it confuses an "equitable environment" with an environment where everyone in it is a clone of one another.

Attempting to determine fairness in a particular situation can be a tricky issue and as a result it often behooves us not to oversimplify things. Suggesting that because women and men choose to dress differently somehow indicates an unfair situation for women without any further analysis misses the mark by a long shot because it fails to take into account all of the relevant factors.

Here is a good example of what I mean. Let’s say I have a layer cake and want to divide it fairly between two people. What is the best way to go about doing this? The simple version would be to cut it down the middle and give half to each person. In theory this makes sense, however it gets more complicated when we try to take into account the individuals involved and their innate preferences.

What if for example one person prefers icing and the other person prefers quantify of cake? Wouldn’t a more fair arrangement in this situation be to offer the top layer (the one with the most icing) to the person who prefers icing while offering a larger mass of cake to the other person?

Now to an outside observer it would be possible to say “hey, wait a second… that person got more cake than the other one” or to say “that isn’t fair… that person got most of the icing”. So long as we isolate only one factor it appears as if the environment is inequitable, but when we more carefully account for all the variables we see that each person made specific trade offs to achieve what they preferred.

So how does this relate to women dressing differently than men when going out to a club or a bar? Well those women are often making a decision that they want to dress in such a way as to attract the most men and as a result be offered free drinks. They are competing for those men with the other women.

Now clearly any woman could select to dress differently and reduce their odds of getting freebies at the bar, but clearly their desire for free drinks outweighs their desire to be comfortable outside. If they did not view this as a fair trade off they would not select to do this.

Interestingly you don’t draw attention to the disparity in who gets into the bars and clubs for free, who gets to skip ahead in line to go in first, and who gets money spent on them by perfect strangers. Instead you focus on the apparent inequity in attire and completely ignore all of the other factors that might in fact make for a reasonable trade off.

Rational people make trade offs all the time, and the fact that one person makes a different trade off than another doesn’t necessarily mean that there in an inequitable environment. To prove that requires an accounting of all the disparate factors and a justification for why one persons trade off is objectively worse than someone else’s.

Will there be sandwiches served?

Posted by: Eric at January 5, 2011 3:20 PM
---------

Punch and pie. People will show up if you mention punch and pie. Free hats help too.

I will now go flagellate myself and sit on the spike of atonement for not considering clothing equality at nightclubs.

The person who invited me to this lecture just wrote to me on Facebook. An excerpt from my response:

The way you empower women is by encouraging them to use their ability to reason -- which is the antithesis of what feminist ideology, women's studies, and thinking like this professor's promotes.

Miniskirts and stilettos are a relatively new fashion. Before the 1920s, long dresses were the norm for women. You can't say that skimpy clothing is a biological must... for most of western history, women haven't been wearing it, and yet have still been attractive to men.

Cleavage has been around for a while, of course. But high-heels have not always been in, in fact, in the 1860s flats and no make-up were the style because women needed to look small and demure to be attractive.

Actually, the more liberated women have become, the more skimpy.

But if you look at Roman fashion (the stola), Greek fashion (the chiton) (with the exception of the nude Spartans and topless Minoans), the medieval kirtle and houppelande, the panniers of the Rococo era, the hoops and bustles of the 1800s... mini-skirts are not a necessity to appeal to men.

There are so many things being missed, it's tough to enumerate them.

If this society truly had oppressed women, they'd have no choice of clothing, barfly or otherwise. They could not determine for themselves what works. They'd have to wear what somebody told them to. Hmm. Where does that happen? {Burka! cough, cough}

But women go to bars in those outfits for the same reason guys go to bars in nice, professional-looking clothes: to find somebody to have sex with, hopefully a keeper in some cases. And in that scene there is NO SUCH THING as "equity".

There's turning a man's head, and there's being brought home to meet mother, and the same outfit won't accomplish the same goal.

Say what you will, there has been a sort of "whore chic" that's been going on in our culture. I think the reason so many people react negatively to it, is that it is low-status behavior. Whores get male attention, but they are the bottom of the barrel. High-status women only sleep with alpha males. Expressing your availability makes you look low-status. Now we have this paradox which is low status chic. It's a bit of an oxymoron. I think what people react to is women making themselves look low status to get attention.

Wow, the manner of dress shows inequality? I'll remember that on the next Men's night, where the ladies have to pay to get in, but the guys get in free. I'll also keep it in mind the next time all the ladies are paying for the guys drinks.

Reality pretty much said what I was going to say so I jsut say.... DITTO REALITY!

"Rational people make trade offs all the time, and the fact that one person makes a different trade off than another doesn’t necessarily mean that there in an inequitable environment. To prove that requires an accounting of all the disparate factors and a justification for why one persons trade off is objectively worse than someone else’s."

~Reality

"I think the reason so many people react negatively to it, is that it is low-status behavior. Whores get male attention, but they are the bottom of the barrel. High-status women only sleep with alpha males. Expressing your availability makes you look low-status. Now we have this paradox which is low status chic."

NicoleK

YES to both. Economic principles, such as cost/ benefit analysis, and negotiation principles are a helpful framework for thinking about male and female behavior, including dress, conduct at work, and all that surrounds sexual harassment lawsuits.

~~~~~~~~
"The tagline for my lecture is an excellent introduction..."
KDH

I find the tag line to be, at best, poorly written. I suspect though that it's simply an accurate presentation of a tired conceptual framework - "equity" - when in the U.S. most of us have the freedom of choices, choices which shift the framework to have an economic analysis (per Reality and NicoleK's comments) be more useful.

Economic principles can help a woman quickly determine if what she's after is better attained by wearing 4 inch heels to a bar in winter; or to work at the office; or in the bedroom with the guy who showed an interest in her mind and heart when she was wearing boots and safety goggles on the factory floor.

The same economic principles can be used by men and women to determine the costs and trade-offs of behavior at work:

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/12/discrimination-lawsuit-potpourri-reed-smith-and-akin-gump/

Life isn't fair and our opportunities, like our strengths and weaknesses, are not equal. The important question is, where is the power and how do you grab it?

I think, in the context of "bar culture," the question to pose to women is not one of equity but rather one of how to negotiate for a higher return on the investment of wearing 4-inch heels.

K. Davis-Hayes, Ph.D says: Hello, all. ...

Spartee: zzzzz.....

Seriously, Ms. K Davis-Hayes, Ph.D, what little of your post I bothered to read, you come across like a campus gender awareness cult member. The rest of us left that behind after we turned 21 and realized how daft all that nonsense is.

"This seemed to stump many of them and even some of the young men came to me later to say they never considered that they took for granted that the young women in their worlds risk health and safety in the name of "being sexy."

/eyeroll

Clearly these guys don't realize that guys hunt mastodon for food and sex, in that order, not for fun.

"High-status women only sleep with alpha males."

No, generally, high status women may have sex with alpha males, but only if they are beautiful.

Put another way, no man lusts for Hillary Clinton because of her status. And no man is turned off by the fact that a beautiful woman is working as a garbagewoman. (And the latter will not be doing that job long...)

I would love to attend a lecture presented by Amy Alkon, Stephen Dubner, and Steven Levitt on The Economics of Attraction: Principles for ROI Analysis and Negotiation.

"...for the Bar, the Boardroom, and the Bedroom."

"the young women in their worlds risk health and safety in the name of "being sexy." "

We're sexual beings, and enjoying our sensuality is one of the most fun aspects of being human. Take that way from someone, and you really take away a huge, important fun part of being human. And you're reducing their mate choices, because who is going to want women who especially dress drab?

I have another more pressing point. You claim there is "inequity" because you see women risking health and safety to 'be sexy'. Have you ever been to a gym? You will find there are millions of men risking health and safety every day, and working themselves to exhaustion constantly, in order to strengthen and tone their bodies to perfection, and I guarantee you 99% of them are doing it for one reason only: To look good for the ladies. Isn't this, in your worldview, sexist? That society "expects" men to do that?

""If you want to trap a bear, don't go off into the woods carrying a Tupperware container of salad.""

Lol - brilliant, very true, you do have a way with words.

I love when feminists use the way women "have to" dress as an argument for inequality. It's such a blind and lazy argument, they don't even see that women now have many more culturally acceptable clothing options than men. Women can go out wearing a dress, a skirt, a blouse, a shirt, pants, shorts, a suit, basically anything fashionable is made for women.

Men on the other hand are still expected to only wear shirts and pants (and shorts in more casual settings). A man in a dress is not remotely the same as a woman in jeans and a shirt, culturally speaking. Yet it's women who are "oppressed" by their clothing options.

What a great argument. (sarcasm)

Thanks, Michelle -- I'd love that.

And regarding this again, this woman is so ridiculously naive and brainwashed. Look at this again:

"the young women in their worlds risk health and safety in the name of "being sexy.

It's men who are the real risk-takers of the species. They have to be, to earn a high-status income --or just a really good one -- to get and keep a partner and support a family.

Men have the death jobs in our society, and in all societies, and always have, and probably always will. Men take vastly more risks than women and are more likely to die from this risk-taking.

Oh, and anybody ever wear a blue ribbon or buy yogurt with a blue lid to support prostate cancer research?

Again, what we wear is a choice. A very close friend of mine who I don't see often is a professor. When I'm in her city, we get together and write. It's hilarious, seeing the two of us together because we look like we got arrested and stuck in the same paddywagon while going to two entirely different events. Her idea of getting dressed is being not naked. She'll come into The Coffee Bean wearing a red hoody and some nondescript pants and very, very sensible shoes, and I show up in a taffeta formalwear skirt and a form-fitting leather jacket with a tiny cropped down jacket over it and big earrings. And lipstick, which she only wears if someone died or somebody's putting her on TV.

Her husband happens to be a guy who camps and who would be weirded out if she dressed like me (*I* would be weirded out if she did). Gregg loves that I always dress up like I do. It's wise to try to dress to please the person you're with or person you want, but it's a choice you make. As I wrote in my Psych Today piece, you can either recognize that looks matter, and do the best with what you have (meaning, make yourself appealing to men, if you want a heterosexual man), or accept the opportunity costs of going ungroomed.

Men, likewise, can accept the opportunity costs of not becoming big earners, in terms of being able to get a woman, or the quality of woman they are able to get.

I think what KDH is underestimating here is that women *like* to dress sexy. Hell, most women just like to dress up, for the most part.

I'm a jeans-and-Tshirt girl. And I sound a good deal like Amy's professor friend, who only wears lipstick if someone died. Most of the things I do in my life involve having to move around with ease, sometimes in less than ideal conditions, and keeping up with the guys (which I feel I can't do in a skirt, and surely not in heels). I feel comfortable in little else. However, tell me we're going to the theater, even if its just the local community theater, and I'll dress up in my fanciest gear. And I like doing it!

The point I'm attempting to make (however poorly) is that if I prefer the Plain Jane comfort, and would surely choose to be buried in my X-Men T-shirt with my Batman shoes and I like to dress up? Then ten-to-one those girls outside the club are getting just as much enjoyment out of it. Heck, most of them probably notice each other's outfits more than the guys do! So saying that it's strictly to garner male attention is kind of ignorant. There's the sheer fun of putting on your sequined mini with the sluttiest top and feeling *good* about yourself, because you are *working* it!

We live in a society that allows us to dress this way, for better or worse (NicoleK makes an interesting point about "low class chic"), and the fact that you're implying that no one makes a conscious choice, that they're all somehow forced to do this by some vague societal influence, is ignorant and demeaning to women. I'm not looking for a man, but if I felt like donning my leather mini and mesh top, it would be because I *felt* like it more than to impress anyone else.

There is a difference between making your own trade-offs, and being traded:

http://www.thenation.com/article/154080/us-dodges-obligation-help-iraqi-women-trafficked-sexual-slavery

Many women -and men- in the U.S. make ill-informed choices. Introduction to economic principles in the context of attraction efforts would equip people who have the luxury of "clubbing" to make better choices from among the choices they have.

As a feminist, I'm going to save my righteous indignation and angst for the plight of those women whose only hope is to try to discern how to survive in the face of only bad choices. As a human, humanist, and pragmatist, it behooves me to keep in mind that people make what *they perceive* to be the best choice from among those available to them *in light of what they are committed to doing/being/achieving.*

Speaking of which, I'm bowing out of this thread now to focus on work.

Best,

here is an interesting aside for KDH. Men and Women are different. The points you have been making point to the idea that you endorse the equality of outcome, rather than the equality of opportunity.

you went ahead and trotted out the tired horse of gender income stratification, ignoring the fact that young unmarried women make more than their male peers. Notice that I said PEER. You speak of young women shivering in the cold or whatever as if that is not their CHOICE. How many of those young women listen to you, when you are determined to take away their power?

Also, I am concluding that Raddy's link to your profile is correct and that the picture of you is accurate. This is the picture of an attractive woman. Not someone wearing a dirty sweatshirt and disheveled hair. And? Nice earrings, stylish glasses that set off your eyes, and a necklace. Couple the necklace and the v-neck top and it makes for a picture that is very nice. And also attractive to men.

Oh, the horror. If you have been studying beauty and such, you may well know that wearing a plunging neckline draws the eye of the beholder DOWN. It doesn't point at your eyes, but your evolutionary assets.

this indicates to me that either you have never connected your own beauty with anything you are talking about, or you realize consciously or unconciously that playing those assets is an ADVANTAGE for you.

This is not meant to be an ad hominim attack on you, I rather wanted to point out the disconnect, between what you are saying, and what you do.

Also, looking at her picture, I see that she's not only very pretty, in a way that would be very appealing to men, but she's wearing a very low-cut, sexy shirt that reveals her breasts. How many men would wear a shirt or sweater like that in their photo on their professorship page -- or anywhere but a really gay club?

Again, I am most disturbed that a university employee, even one employed by a university based around irrational thought (the belief, sans evidence, in god), publicly exhibits "logic" that would be red-penned in a freshman lit paper.

Heh, Spartee, this just proves how sexist -I- am... I'm thinking about fertile women of marriagable age, not about older ones.

... I wish we could edit our comments and add to them.

Anyhow. A lot of what we consider attractive is associated with high status. The classic example of course (oft mentioned on this board) is that in societies where food is scarce, fat women are desirable, but in societies where there is a surplus thin women are.

I don't consider Hillary Clinton to be a young fertile woman of marriagable age. Though I'm sure she could remarry very easily if Bill died or something. I'm guessing she wouldn't have much trouble.

Women have to dress sexy...if they want to attract a man.

Otherwise, nobody is forcing it on them.

There is a reason the phrase "Its academic" is used to mean "its irrelevant".

There is such a thing as a wasted education.

Its a fine thing to study anthropology and try to understand the human condition and how to approach various cultures and whatnot. However...focusing narrowly upon "beauty culture" is like only seeing a single color and shape in the entire world, and being blind to everything that didn't conform to it.

Ah yes,

Feminism: Promoting womens freedom and equality by taking away their choices

"Oh, and anybody ever wear a blue ribbon or buy yogurt with a blue lid to support prostate cancer research?"

We'd have a bunch more success with the fundraising if we could only figure out where to pin the ribbon...

"and that attraction would stem from both your good looks, winning personality and good sense."

Well yeah, because obviously all women have their IQ and personality type stamped on their foreheads. But you know us males, we're too stupid and arrogant to learn how to read. That's how we maintain Teh Patriarchie!

"Even I must confess that this past New Year's Eve is the first that did not include high heels and a beautiful dress that would leave me shivering in Los Angeles in January."

Well yeah, because everyone knows that Los Angeles is cryogenic in January. I remember the last time I was there in the winter -- kept having to wipe the liquid nitrogen off my shoes. Darned inconvenient. I don't know how you women put up with it.

>>"Cornerdemon, you have "Batman shoes"? I want to reach through the computer and hug you!"

What can I say? I rock the Geek-Chic.

>>..."Teh Patriarchie..."

I laughed out loud at that one. All I could think was "what does Jughead do, then?"

Yeah, CM, Patriarchie is kind of like Archie Andrews, except meaner. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe that's Reggie...

Yes, Archie is the real American male. He doesn't have a clue.

All of your comments especially you, our host Amy, just explains why the lecture has a place. Women are a big part of reproducing the inequality. As you said, no one is standing with a gun to their head when they get dressed. But years of social education, of what is to be be "a women" which gets down to you're a woman if you win a man, that's what is injected into their head and makes them dress they way they do. To root out these imprints in their heads, that is the subject of Dr. Kenya' Davis-Hayes' lecture.
At least this is what I understood. Looking forward to hearing the rest.

Alexis,

It is good that you presented your point of view. What is bad however is that you have failed to materially address any of the points that have been brought up which question the validity of criticizing women for independent choices they make.

Instead of classifying these choices as rationale decisions made by these women, you instead attempt to classify these women as the victims of brain washing via “social education”.

These women weren’t “brain washed” into wanting to attract a man. They want to attract men because that is what single heterosexual women want. Similarly, single heterosexual men want to attract women.

As a result, both men and women who are sexually interested in one another try to observe the responses of the other sex to certain behaviors and identify which behaviors are successful and which ones result in failure.

This isn’t “injected into their heads” to “make them dress the way they do” any more than it is injected into the head of a scientist not to run the same experiment twice if it failed the first time. Humans learn by experience, and the experience of women is that they tend to garner more male attention if they present themselves in a certain way.

Once they make this realization they then have the ability to rationally decide if they want that male attention or if they do not want it. In this regard they are in a position of power, not weakness as you would have us believe.

Your argument is akin to saying that businesses have been “brain washed” into wanting customers and that by “social education” has “injected into their heads” to “make them advertise the way they do” in order to attract customers.

Are businesses victims of the consumer base who enjoys their advertisements? Or are businesses in control of and responsible for how they choose to advertise?

To say that men should not wear skirts is no different than what Goebbels said about the Jews - that they are inferior! Jews and men wearing skirts are NOT inferior!