Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I'm having a hard time understanding why women's underclothing is
    of such great concern to you.  Almost every aspect of the changes
    you describe are visual -- it sounds like you have a hard time thinking
    of women as individual people.  Perhaps you could talk about why
    the absence or presence of certain clothing items affects your
    perception of the world so strongly.
    
    Liz Augustine
    

    But what about before silk stockings?  During WWII, when silk was
    in short supply and being used for parachutes, some women used to
    paint runs on their legs so it looked like they were wearing stockings.
    

    re .3:
    
    I think you mean that they painted _seams_ on their legs, not _runs_.
    
    re .0:
    
    why'd you delete it?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Well the base note got deleted before I read it, (why, praytell?),
    but I can just guess it was a note written by a guy complaining
    that women's comfort has once again maddeningly ruined his scenery.
    
    Men must have been ECSTATIC in the days when women's feet were bound
    (to retard growth and keep them tiny!), throughout life so they would 
    look the way men wanted them to look.  And life must have been a
    visual FEAST back in the days when women laced their waists
    dangerously tight so they would look the way men wanted them to look.  
    The women who actually had their lower ribs removed, (yes, they really 
    DID this!), must have inspired such PASSION in men!
    
    Well take heart men, we still walk precariously with little sticks 
    under our heels so that our legs will look like you want them to.  
    We still brutalize our hair for you, paint our faces for you, spend 
    more money on our appearance for you than you do for us, AND we still 
    wear "nylons" for you.  Yes, we LOVE those flimsy little things
    that last about 2-3 days, cost at least $2 a pair, and are as warm as 
    wearing nothing at all.  But at least you still get to see our legs, right?
    Isn't that the point?
    
    What are you going to do when women finally decide they don't want
    to be phycially impaired AT ALL for your visual pleasure?  We've
    come far from the days of intentionally breaking our bones for your 
    enjoyment but we still have far to go.
    
    I am woman, My feet hurt,
    I turned my ankle in the dirt
    And I fell right down and ran my pantyhose!
    
    But at least she's in a dress,
    With frozen knees she looks her best,
    And her ankles wobble everywhere she goes!
                           

    Re .5
    
    Don't blame the men - most women dress for other women. 
                           
    I (a man!) think high heels are ridiculous, long painted nails are
    ludicrous, pants are warmer when it's below zero than dresses, etc. 
    In addition, most make-up makes me wheeze. (You can imagine what
    this did to my high school social life.)
    
    Men's fashions are equally horrendous. Whoever invented the necktie
    should have strangled when he first tied it on.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, everybody, male and female, can dress as
    they want so long as they are clean and neat, and do not detract
    from the day's (or night's) activities. That leaves a lot of leeway
    depending on the activity. 
    
    Don't blame me if you decide to wear something uncomfortable.
    
    -bs

I've been read-only in this file for some weeks, but I feel like
I have to respond to this. (Please pardon the "stream of consciousness".)

>>< Note 123.5 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >
>>                       -< Yeah - bring on the garters! >-
>>    Well take heart men, we still walk precariously with little sticks 
>>    under our heels so that our legs will look like you want them to.  
>>    We still brutalize our hair for you, paint our faces for you, spend 
>>    more money on our appearance for you than you do for us, AND we still 
>>    wear "nylons" for you.  Yes, we LOVE those flimsy little things
>>    that last about 2-3 days, cost at least $2 a pair, and are as warm as 
>>    wearing nothing at all. But at least you still get to see our legs, right?
>>    Isn't that the point?
    
Well, I for one man would strenuously disagree with your complaint.

I have been fighting for 25 years - as long as I have been really aware
of adult sex roles - against exactly what you're against.

I'm not sure that things are so simple.  I think that many women have been
_convinced_ that what you're fighting is exactly what they themselves
_want_ to do. Is it brainwashing? Perhaps.  On the other hand, quietly, how are
we to know, really? Are you so sure that you have a monopoly on "the truth?"

I think my wife spends more on clothing than I do because she _enjoys_ it.
She designs and makes her clothing, and has a ball at it. It's not just
"for me", but that is part of it.  I do dress for her, also.  We dress
modestly, attractively, and in a well-groomed way for each other. 
Would you criticize this?

I have worked hard with my wife (and she with me!). I finally did convince 
her that she looked a whole lot better --- and that it would _be_ 
a lot better for her ---  _without_ the goop on her face, without the 
girdle (hey! I met her 22 years ago!), etc.

I've had less (but still significant) luck convincing her about deleting the 
high heels.

Was she brainwashed before, or did I brainwash her?  I think, *both*.

More generally, I know one manufacturer of female cosmetics, and two 
manufacturers of women's clothing.  I have had _no_ luck trying to 
convince them!  They claim that the demand is _for_ their current
products; I'm not convinced that that's all that far off (for all
reasons...). Is it so easy to tell what's genuine here and what's not?

But I can also give a "classic" positive example of your thesis!
I know a podiatrist.  I have given him every physical 
argument in the world about high heels, and some of the highly-styled
shoes, but he will not recommend against them to his female patients.
(On the other hand, perhaps he *truly doesn't feel* --- despite
what is obvious to you and me --- that the high heels are deleterious,
to say nothing of uncomfortable.)

/don feinberg

    
    I'm of the opinion that the inventor of pantyhose should be consigned
    to a century of sack cloth and ashes in atonement for this dastardly 
    deed.  Of course I'm a perverted sexist swine, but I'm happy this
    way and my wife would divorce me if I changed. No :- here.

I'm glad you're still here, Steven_Dana... I would have missed you!!

Leg warmers make sense.  After all, they were designed to keep dancer's
muscles warm while they "warm up" and in between workouts.  I've heard
they do a good job.

Bugsys look damn silly in them, tho'... and Bugsys won't wear 'em because
they're too much a fashion hype.  Bugsys, for one, don't have the legs to
wear 'em!!!!

When I was a mere tyke, Mommo used to make me wear wool leggings to
school under my dress.  Back then, the dress code prohibited girls from
wearing pants of any kind to school... The leggings matched my coat and
were more form-fitting, like tights.  They were hellish to take off and
put on, but I stayed dandy warm!!!

Now, philosophical discussion NOT directed at eagles in particular:

I think women would be overall less fashion conscious if we didn't feel
that most men watch us like hawks, and are less tolerant of those of us
who dress for warmth, not fashion.  Most men I know freely admit that looks
are important, or at least have a high rating in their wish lists.

We've only recently learned to live for ourselves, and now we have to learn
that all the 'little' things do count...

When I dress up, I usually do so for myself... and I FREEZE in the winter
when I wear a skirt or dress to work.  But it makes me feel good to look
good, and sometimes, on a lousy winter day, I need to feel that good about
myself.

I don't mind it too much -- and it's a short, easy way to cheer me up.

And if I could find leggings in my size, I'd buy 'em in a snap!

Welcome aboard, Don Feinberg!!!!

Bugsy

    I don't think I have a monopoly on the truth by any means.  I just
    tend to take common sense and extrapolate sometimes further than
    I should.
    
    And common sense tells me that before the days of high heels women 
    did NOT clamor for them.  Something tells me that before nylon was
    invented women were not using primitive substitutes to freeze their
    legs.
    
    So how did these things get invented?  And why?  And what made them
    accepted?  When the first pair of high heels were ever made I doubt
    the first fashion queen put them on and said "Finally something
    to wobble in!  My back has been feeling TOO good lately!".  No,
    she put them on and FORCED herself to learn to walk in them because 
    when she did, men said "WOW!".  And women knew that women who gained 
    men's attention and approval had a better life than women who did not.
    
    Women are only PARTS of men's lives.  But traditionally men WERE
    women's lives, 100%.  We still get our jobs, our love, our raises, our 
    loans, our homes from men and therefore cannot afford to thumb our
    noses at the guys who say "This is how we like women to look."  Sure
    we have a choice but if it comes down to say, a promotion for a woman, 
    whether or not she wears skirts, nylons and heels contributes to the 
    promoter's impression of her "professionalism" and whether or not we 
    agree with it, we all KNOW it.  It's a very watered down, 80's version
    of the casting couch and most men don't even realize it still exists.
    That is until they stop to wonder WHY women's clothes are sometimes
    akin to torture.
    
    So when we're running to the store for the 5th pair of nylons this
    week it is NOT because we just LUV these sassy little things that
    cost so much and make our legs look so smooth and pretty - it's
    because GUYS do and we still need their approval to get anywhere in 
    life.  And yes of COURSE I think this is changing.  I KNOW there are men
    who say they view women as people and not as ornaments.  But even 
    THOSE men will pick up a skin mag when nobody's looking and ooh and 
    ahh at all the "props" (do women really chew on necklaces?).  
    
    A Victoria's Secret or Frederick's catalogue, (or any skin mag), looks 
    as silly to me as a "clothing for animals" catalogue.  Poodles in 
    booties, cats in little sweaters, terriers in little rain jackets, 
    women in little bunny suits, women in cute little french maid outfits,
    women in high heels... 
    
    Think women invented all this stuff because it sounded good to them?
    
    Question for women: If you were going somewhere for a few weeks
    where you would not encounter any male at all, would you pack the
    heels and hose?  Why or why not?

>    Question for women: If you were going somewhere for a few weeks
>    where you would not encounter any male at all, would you pack the
>    heels and hose?  Why or why not?

Not on a bet! Sneakers, jeans, a football shirt or two, and a sweater.

I will say, tho', in defense of the changing times, that we joined 3 other 
couples that are friends of mine for a weekend of white water rafting in
Maine, and there wasn't a set of heels or a pair of nylons in ANYONE'S
gym back.

As a matter of fact, there was a distinct lack of makeup and dresses...
and not one guy complained!  When we went out to dinner, we found a semi-
fancy restaurant and the 8 of us clumped around in sneakers and sweats
for the evening, and we raised no eyebrows.

THAT was the weekend that WAS!

Bugsy

    For what it's worth...I don't wear high heels, panty hose, make-up
    or skirts that don't allow me to walk normal. I have gotten along
    just fine and I usually attract the kind of man I want to attract.
    If they must see all that stuff on a woman then they are not my
    type. I like comfort.
    
    Bahama Mama
    

    Women have a far greater choice of what to wear than men do. A man
    can wear a pair of pants and a shirt - everything else is an
    embellishment on these basics.
    
    Women can wear dresses, skirts, etc. plus virtually anything a man
    can wear. Women have a far greater choice of makeup, jewelry, hair
    styles than men do. 
    
    So why are the woman complaining?
    
    -bs

    I don't dress for men either.  The only man I care about impressing
    is my SO and he's not the type to be impressed by the way I dress.
    If he was, he wouldn't be my SO.  When I occasionally do wear a
    skirt, it's for me and because I like a change of pace from time
    to time.
    
    In fact, I have to laugh when I go out - or even just come to work
    - and see women beautifully dressed, fancifully all made-up, and
    hair curled.  I know in the time it takes them to do all that every day
    for six months, I could have read the VAX 032 standard, cover to
    cover.  Which is really going to help my career more?  Which is really
    a more productive use of my time?  With all the money they spend on
    makeup, jewelry, and clothes, I could have had a small downpayment on a
    house!  Which is a better investment of my money?
    
    So since I was a teenager, I have *never* subscribed to the "dress
    for men" theory.  I know I'm not the only one.  So if the base note
    or the men (or whoever) in this note are trying to make me "go back
    to dressing more the way I used to", it won't work.  I was in jeans
    then, I'm in jeans now.

	Ellen

Re .5

I can understand your point, but not the vehemence... I agree, it
is sad that people are so concerned with appreance. I think the heart
of the problem is that women have been given the message that their
only purpose was to be attractive and to obtain a mate. Even as 
recently as the early sixties (as I remember form my childhood) herorines
were beautiful but basically useless creatures. They looked nice and gave
the hero something to look forward to when he was done saving the world.
Even as we moved into the era of woman's equality, most woman still felt that
push to be beautiful. As if no amount of career, or intellectual success
could make up for that one short coming. And no woman is immune, as even
beautiful woman age, that being the other unforgivable sin. But to blame
all this on men is short sighted. We do not have control over what society
thinks, we can only control our own thoughts and actions. To free woman
from this obsseion with beauty first we must free ourselves, learn to
love ourselves just as we are. (Not an easy thing to do...)

As for me I am learning to follow my own advice. I have never worn make-up, 
don't own a pair of high spiked heels, and only wear dresses in the summer 
(I love skirts in hot weather and feel sorry for men because they can't wear 
them.) I have never lacked for male apprecation nor do I feel unattractive in 
my comfort. While I admit some of my male associates would find me more 
physically attractive in dresses, heels, some would not, and in any case it 
doesn't matter overly much to me what they think either way.

-vicki

    
    Re .17, are the women complaining?  Maybe women are complaining
    about how they think they have to look to attract men, or compete
    with each other?  But, if you can't please everyone you may as well
    please yourself.
    
    Lorna
    

    It's odd how things cycle...
    
    In  the  middle ages men wore high heeled court shoes, stockings and 
    showed off their elegant legs, the women wore "pancake" makeup  that 
    suppressed  their  features,  and  floor length dresses that hid the 
    legs. 
    
    Admittedly at one point the Italian women adopted absurd high  heels 
    (more  like stilts, with 12 to 24 inch platform soles...), but until 
    the 19th century it was often the men who were the  fashion  plates, 
    with women only wearing fancy clothes at home.
    
    Now  we  are  seeing  a  rebirth in the wearing of bright colors and 
    make-up by men, earrings are back...  perhaps we are about  to cycle 
    back  to  the medieval dress precedence? Or perhaps just to enter an 
    era in which each sex is free to dress as it chooses without fearing 
    the ridicule of our fellow humans?
    
    /. Ian .\

     re .18:
     
     > With all the money they spend on makeup, jewelry, and clothes, I
     > could have had a small downpayment on a house!    .......
     > Which is really going to help my career more?  
     
     Why apply your values to someone else's lifestyle?  Are you making
     value judgments about them, based on your standards rather than
     theirs?  There may even be some people who think it's important to
     take the time to look well, and that it's less important to be
     concerned with career-related achievements.  If so, that's their
     business. 
     
     The best use of any person's resources (time, money, whatever) can be
     determined only by that individual.              
     
     --Mr Topaz

    > But to blame all this on men is short sighted.  We do not have
      control over what society thinks.
    
    What society thinks IS what men think.  Woman's voice has only recently
    been heard and even more recently, heeded.  "Society" still thinks
    women don't need day care or equal pay or home loans...
    
    Sounds like every woman in this file has admitted in one way or
    another that heels and nylons are uncomfortable and impractical.  
    Some wear them "sometimes" some never.  No one wears them because
    they feel good.
    
    That convinces me that these things are not worn by women for their
    own pleasure.
    
    One noter suggested wearing leg warmers so that you can be warm
    and still be on display for the guys when you get to work.  What
    a great solution!  Perhaps we could all get lockers here and then 
    we could all dress normally every day, and just change into our
    man-pleaser's when we get here and change back before we leave!
    We could keep push-up bras for those special meetings and stockings
    and lacy garters for those late nights! 
    
    That way we'd be warm and comfortable for the most part, and the
    men aren't denied their fantasies!
    
    Sorry for the sarcasm.  I really can get carried away on this topic.
    I'm envious of women who are oblivious to this pressure but don't
    underestimate the power beauty has on men.  I'll bet it's one of
    the biggest fears and desires of their priveleged lives.
    

re: .17
>  Women have a far greater choice of what to wear than men do. ...
> So why are the woman complaining?
re: .21
>  Why apply your values to someone else's lifestyle?  Are you making
>  value judgments about them, based on your standards rather than
>  theirs?

The important question is: how does a person make his/her decisions? For
example, I don't believe that a woman choses to wear makeup or heels or
tight clothes on her own, but does it to achieve a certain image. That image
is one that she wouldn't have come up with on her own, but is created and
re-inforced daily through ads, TV, books and movies. Similarly, I don't
understand why men choose to wear business suits that all basically look the
same, but that's all that's "allowed".

I wouldn't say that someone is wrong because s/he doesn't dress the way I
do, or the way I would. I really do believe that people should be allowed
their own choices, but it's not free choice when you've been brainwashed
since childhood. Women's bodies are used to sell everything from showerheads
(you always see a woman taking a shower on the box) to clothing to cars. The
women in those ads are hardly every just plain folks. After you've seen that
every day for years and years, it affects how you make your choices. That's
what I object to. Wear 12" heels if you want to, but only if you *really*
want to.

Having to live up to these images is grossly unfair, because many people
simply can't. Even if you can one day, you may be out the next. The only
people that fashion really helps is the designers, because they get to
make the arbitrary decisions about what's "in" and when you have to replace
your wardrobe.


did I get carried away again?		-- hal

re: .25 (Marge)

>    Life's a bitch if you let it be...
and it stays that way if you don't bitch about it and do something about it.
    
>    Lighten up,
No problem: That's my main motto in life (aside from "When's lunch?")
    

RE .23

No sarcasm intended, but why does all this bother you so much? I honestly
don't understand...

Unless you have a dress code in your office, no one will make you wear
something that you find uncomfortable, and (in my opinion) if a man is 
worth having he will look past your appreance, be it good or bad.

I don't deny that those role models of woman in restrictive, uncomfortable
clothing exist, (however I do deny that society is only comprised of the
opinions of men) what I was trying to point out was that we should not
worry about what we cannot change, but concentrate on what we can. I can't
change the fact that as I grow older society says I will grow less attractive,
I can however refuse to believe it. I have complete control over those 
concepts I will or won't buy into, and I for one intend to be a very sexy
senior citizen. This doesn't make the problem of age=ugly go away, but if
enough woman refuse to believe that growing old or wearing comfortable clothes
makes them unattractive well... I have always been an optimist.

:->

-vicki 

    

    An aside: I too am happy to see eagles flying here again!
    
    As far as pantyhose, I hate them, I wear skirts with boots in the
    winter (maybe one day a week) or go barelegged in the summer (but
    not to work , I only wear pants in the summer to work). But it is
    my choice. Fashion designs will change if women stop buying the
    stuff. Besides if you read old "dress for success" Molloy pants
    are not recommended for working women because they are too sexy!
    So what, I wear them anyway. 
    
    The ugly truth is that in study after study researchers find that
    attractive people (thats men and women) are more likely to find
    success. They are trusted more and liked more. What we need to change
    is what our society thinks is attractive. 
    
    As far as clothing fads go...I'd like to see a return of the COD
    PIECE. :-) Liesl

    George,
    Your note .30 is markedly different in tone than the original was,
    although the content is similar. I think your intent is somewhat
    clearer in the rewrite.
    
    Liz Augustine

    Well made low heels are comfortable and to my mind look better
    with skirts than other styles of shoes. It is possible to find
    panty hose that fit for most people, and they look better than
    socks with skirts and are more comfortable than stockings and garters.
    Until some creative fashion designer comes up with womens clothes
    that allow us to look professional without wearing skirts and dress
    shoes I'll save my jeans and work shirts and sneakers for Saturday.
    I set my hair and wear makeup because *I* think I look better(and
    I'll match degrees with anyone who considers me a mental light weight
    because I do so.)  Choosing to wear dressy clothes, makeup, etc.
    on does not mean a woman is playboy bunny material, or an airhead
    who cares only about dressing up for men.

    Bonnie

                   Yeah!!  You got my vote on COD pieces..
    
         ********************************************************
         !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mikie? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
         ******************************************************** 
         
         ******* Please press Key Pad 3 to view next note *******
         
         *** What's the matter? Don't you want to press KP3? ****
         
         *************  Ok, have it your way then.  *************
         
         ********************************************************
         ******  The Below information is for the N.S.A.  ******
         ********************************************************
         Assassination, Bombs, Chip Set, Crypto, DES, Explosion,
         Falsified, Gopher, Hit Squad, Inoperative, Justification,
         Kilo, Laser, Micro, Neutron, Octet, Pico, Que, Restricted
         Access, Secret Plans, Terrain Following, CCCP, Vax in
         Moscow, Witworth, Xenon, Zygote and NetParty with Ivan.  
         ********************************************************
         |||||||||||||||||||||| Eat this N.S.A. |||||||||||||||||
         ********************************************************
                                      
    

This isn't saying anything new, just adding another mans weight to the
fray!

I do not like _most_ makeup on either women or men. Kissing women with
lipstick is like skidding around on old sumpoil, I prefer *naked* lips.

I am more atracted to women in trousers than in skirts.

High heels and pantyhose (known as 'tights' in the UK) or stockings
do nothing for me, they are more 'acceptable' than 'smart'.

Since the fashion revolutions of the sixties people have been able to wear
practically anything whether they are male or female. Looking around DEC in
the Reading, most of the women are very individual.

I do know of men that expect or even *force* women to wear their idea of
clothing for women, but most men couldn't give a .... After all clothing
is whats on the outside.

Dave.

    RE:.36
    
       But Dave, you can call women in your country handsome and it
    is taken as a compliment.  It doesn't work that well over here!
    
    GRG

    
    A good course in anatomy and physiology is what changed my perception
    of what women go through when wearing certain articles of clothing.
    Even now, I can close my eyes and remember what high heels do to
    feet and lower legs.  Brrrrr.
    
    I like how women look in skirts and boots myself, an opinion which I
    offer at appropriate moments, but it has never even occurred to me to
    try and dictate how a woman should dress for anything.  If I think
    something looks nice, I say so, but I don't have to wear it, so I don't
    get a vote. 
    
    I also remember talking with a woman once about corsets.  Apparently, a
    properly fitted corset (not one tight enough to rearrange the internal
    organs), tailored to the individual woman, is supposed to be somewhat
    healthy (support without straining the spine). Of course, like all
    other custom tailoring, it's expensive.  Perhpas that's how corsets
    began, and people got overzealous.
    
    DFW

    For years I deliberately "dressed down" and felt very comfortable.
    I lived in jeans, parachute pants, T-shirts, Birkenstocks and so
    forth.  If I had to attend a social occasion I wore my one dress
    and pair of panty hose, but it was always a scramble finding them.
    When I taught school I wore slightly more decent pants and smock-type
    blouses for comfort, since I was down on the floor with kids a lot.
    
    Those dress styles were appropriate for what I was doing, but I
    never felt like a very influential person.  Smart and capable but
    not influential.
    
    Now that I am at DEC and in a group where the women have a number
    of dress styles, all of which seem to be acceptable, I usually wear
    skirts, blouses and jackets or vests.  Pantyhose and low heels,
    too, except in the summer when I get by with a tan!  I invested
    a lot of money in my current wardrobe after losing a lot of weight
    last year, and feel that it is money well spent.  Most days I feel
    like I could go anywhere in DEC and feel comfortable and appropriate.
    That's important to me.  I don't spend any time on makeup, and about
    7-8 minutes per day on blowdrying my hair.  
    
    The clothes help me feel good about myself--I think that's because
    they help me project the basic competence I feel inside to the outside
    world.  People seem to respond to the nonverbal aspects of dressing
    *professionally*.  It doesn't have to do with men or sex specifically. 
    
    I am certainly not "up to" Molloy's standards--I love skirts and blouses,
    which he classifies as purely secretarial.  I love vests, which
    for some reason he thinks are sexy.   (Mine aren't, I don't think.)
    I don't like dark colors a lot, either.  But if I wanted a top
    managerial job with DEC, I would probably use Molloy like a Bible,
    because he has identified a lot of aspects of dressing which people
    *unconsciously* respond to.  
                                                                   
    When I teach adults in night school, I find that wearing very
    professional clothes helps me gain their confidence and concentrate
    on teaching.  It's like a running start in the right direction.
    
    And that's the key--these things work for me, but I would never
    expect other people to necessarily feel comfortable with what makes 
    me feel comfortable!
    
    Holly

    
    
    To be perfectly honest, and I speak for most men, I love
    women no matter what is being worn!
    
    The greatest thing that ever happen to me was discovering the 
    opposite sex. ( Love to explore!)
    
    But really I for one appreciate all you women have to go through
    all I can say I wouldn't want to do it!
    
    Thank you ladies!!
    
    Cal
    

    For those of you who feel you *must* dress "professionally":
    
    I'm an engineer again now (strictly blue jeans and twinkies :-))
    but for a while a was in a technical marketing position - suits,
    pantyhose, and pumps.  I really had to dress like this for customer
    presentations.  I'm short, look much younger that I am (at 28, I
    still sometimes get "carded" buying cigarettes, and I ALWAYS expect
    to be carded at a package store), and dressing in a "professional"
    way gave me much more credibility with customers (for whatever
    reason...)  Still, being on my feet all day giving presentations
    in those things that designers allege to be shoes gave me a backache
    just *thinking* about it.  Fortunately, I found a solution.
    
    I went out and bought jazz pumps made for dancers (remember
    _All_That_Jazz_?).  These are classic-looking pumps, about an inch
    and a half of heel, with a strap.  Nothing fancy, but just what
    Molloy ordered.  And they are made to *dance* in.  They are well
    constructed, not terribly expensive (around $40 for Capezio) and
    feel great.  They can also be dyed in any colour.  Check out your
    local dance store, or a Capezio outlet.  Your feet will thank you.
    
    gee, I guess all those dance classes were good for *something*...
    
    Rita
    
    

I feel compelled to add something here that might warrant a topic of
it's own, but it seems to be related enough to belong here.  Sorry,
Kerry, but I DID read that base note and I'm STILL going off on a 
tangent.

Anyway, being a software engineer (and a woman) I find I run into a
special set of problems.  I like to dress in suits and clothes specific
to my gender in the business world.  I am equally at home in jeans,
Nikes, a football shirt, and a tendency to get unruly.  I wear both
to work at various times, thus always eliciting a response "You interviewing?".
To which I usually reply "Nope.  No clean dungarees..." which somehow they
accept.

If I wear dressy clothes (and by this I only mean business clothes -- no
plunging necklines, spiked heels, or tight skirt slit to the crotch)
when I am trying to work with other software engineers (always male) they
have a hard time taking me seriously as a software engineer.  I don't
mean my co-workers. When I first start a job I ALWAYS dress down until they
see my capabilities, and then I feel comfortable enough to dress up.
Here's an example, only one of which that happen frequently.

I attended a seminar at ZKO.  It was on a day when I had an important meeting
offsite with some higher ups.  I was in a black suit, dressy blouse, moderate
dressy shoes with 2 1/2" heels, and nylons.  After the seminar I asked the
presenter a question about performance.  He gave me a half-comical look and
asked why I was concerned with performance.  I explained that my questions
were as a result of his presentation and in my circumstance, it seemed
to me that using this under these circumstances might have been a problem.
"There are no performance issues!" he said and he walked away.

I sent him mail the next day asking the SAME questions about performance.
I got back a lengthy dissertation on varying degrees of performance,
benchmarking that was done, and ways that I could ensure that performance
could be monitored.

I thanked him profusely for the information, identified myself to him,
and asked why I got the hassle the previous day.

"I'm sorry.  I didn't know you were a software engineer.  I thought you
were with the marketing people...."

What DIFFERENCE did THAT make???

And this happens alot!!! My husband explained to me that one of the realities
of software sometimes happens that those who can't code usually dress to
impress in order to hide their incompetence.  Now HE'S been a software
engineer for 10 years now.

Do any of you run into this??  Do other software engineers feel that way?
Does it happen to other professions?

By the way, the guy who ran the seminar had quite a reputation at DEC and
is no longer working for us.

Bugsy

    RE .42, Bugsy I have seen the same attitude you described towards
    suits. I too alternate between somewhat dressy for customer
    presentations and quite casual for technical work. I have taught
    VMS system management a couple of times and always made sure to
    look like a technical and not marketing person. 
    
    What I think is interesting is that even though I know impressions
    are not fact I find myself believing them too. As a technical person
    I find I distrust the abilities of people in suits. It seems like
    a false front. (my pre-apology to marketing and sales types) I have
    been burned so often by the business suit crowd who don't know what
    they are talking about that I expect them to say half truths and
    cause trouble for the folks who really do the work. This of course
    is probably not true for all people who wear suits (I wear them
    sometimes!) but a few confirmations of a sterotype seem to cement
    it in your brain.
    
    Since this is off the topic I'll start a dress for success note
    if someone else has not. Liesl

    My boss doesn't wear suits.  His boss doesn't wear suits except
    about once a month when she has some bigwig meeting.  Her boss
    wears them about as often.  Now I ask you - do you think *I* should
    wear suits to work when my boss's boss's boss doesn't even wear
    them?  That would look positively ridiculous.  The only female
    supervisor in our group has never even worn a skirt to work as long
    as she's been here.  Neither has the only female consulting engineer
    here.
    
    Same attitude identified by Bugsy in .42.

    Molloy was dead wrong about dressing for success at DEC.  But then
    again I find it socially repulsive that this *man* seems to have
    the authority to tell *women* how to dress best!  Doesn't anyone
    else here find that pretty disgusting?
    
    	-Ellen

re: .44 (ellen)
    ... But then
    again I find it socially repulsive that this *man* seems to have
    the authority to tell *women* how to dress best!  Doesn't anyone
    else here find that pretty disgusting?

I don't like him telling me, either.  Stuff like that is self-fulfilling --
it becomes important because people read it and think that it's important
and tell other people to read it...

					-- hal

{RE .23} - You are invited to open your mind a bit and see us all - men and
 women - as the individuals we are.  I grow wearier every time I see sexist
  dogma like your notes continue on.
   <_Jym_>

    
    re: .44,.45
    
    Why do you find it disgusting that a MAN tell a WOMAN how to dress
    for success??  I would guess that in 90% of the cases that the people
    that the women are competing against for the higher positions are
    MEN.  We are competing against men,  so if we want to succeed in
    "their" world, don't you think that it would be benefical if we
    "played by their rules".   Now, don't get me wrong.  I am not saying
    that women don't know how to dress themselves accordingly.  Nor
    am I saying that the above hold true for all cases.  All
    I am saying, is that you are getting a viewpoint that has been around
    for ages.  And, in an institution like banking, which is very
    conservative, it  makes a big difference how you dress.  And in
    such a situation, you better dress "like the men" if you want to
    be taken seriously.
    
    Now, if you choose not to "conform" then, don't go work in a bank.
    But,  if you want to compete in a world such as banking, then you
    better learn how the games are played, by people who have already
    played the game.
    
    Sherry
    
    
    

    Since we WERE talking about women dressing for men (i.e. pantyhose
    and skirts), why are so many women admitting that they aren't taken
    seriously in technical roles if they DO follow "dress for success"
    rules?  Reverse discrimination?
    
    No one mentioned that one reason a woman might choose to wear skirts
    instead of pants is that they are more comfortable.  No tight crotches,
    freedom to step out in long strides without being hampered by snug
    legs, coolers in the summer, and plenty warm in the winter with
    heavier stockings, knee socks, or leg warmers.  I wear mine with
    low or flat heels; my jeans are only for getting dirty in. 
    
    But I was a rebel -- in my high school in the early 70's, the "uniform"
    of teenage girls was jeans (the more tattered, the better) and smocks
    or T-shirts.  I wore skirts for four years, and I don't think it
    affected anyone's opinion of me in any substantial way.
    
    

The December 1, 1986 issue of ADWEEK reports the following:

	Nearly two-thirds of the working women responding to a 
	study from the makers of Woolite Fine Fabric Wash said
	they regularly wore "erotic" lingerie under their
	oh-so-proper business clothes.

One point that hasn't been mentioned thus far is whether women 
feel sexier wearing certain types of clothes.  Of course, 
conditioning has everything to do with it.  Both men and women 
receive strong messages about their value and relative worth 
according to how they present themselves, but in 
counter-balancing gender-roles defined by the clothes we wear, 
I think some women have over-compensated with the attitude, 
(something like) "I won't wear skirts or stockings because that's 
what men expect me to wear."

On the other hand, I bet women would be floored at how many men 
have actually "cross-dressed" at some point in their lives, and 
how many more have fantasied about it.

/chuck

re: < Note 123.42 by RSTS32::TABER "If you can't bite, don't bark!" >

>>>"I'm sorry.  I didn't know you were a software engineer.  I thought you
>>>were with the marketing people...."

Why is this a "woman's" issue?  I think that it's a "people" issue.

I spent several years in marketing in DEC. I used to wear a 3-piece
suit (most) every day. When I changed to back engineering, I still
wore tie/jacket most all the time.

I used to run around DEC with my product manager, who would frequently wear
jeans.

What do you think people would assume about who was the marketing type
and who was the technical type - until we opened our mouths?

Bugsy, you still did the right thing. HE was wrong.

				-0-

I want to extend the issue. But, as with a LOT of the notes I've read in 
this file, I don't see this as a women's issue; I see it as a people issue.

SET/FLAME=ON

When I was in my teens/20's, I was a serious rebel at wearing a suit/tie/
jacket/etc.  I can remember saying on many occasions, "how does how
I dress affect my competence?".

Well, in some sense, it doesn't.  But in some sense,
and in some situations, it really, truly does.

To some degree, I see "grooming" and "dressing" as a statement of respect --
or lack of respect -- for oneself, for co-workers and customers. 

Please don't accuse me of recommending that everyone should wear suits/ties/ 
etc., all the time.  Would I say that people shouldn't wear jeans in the 
office -- sitting at the terminal coding, or sitting in the lab debugging 
hardware? It would be crazy not to.

Maybe I'm an old-fashioned SOB,
but I think that there is some relationship between the care with which 
one grooms and dresses oneself and the respect they have for
themselves and for others. If someone interviews with me unkempt, and/or
in dirty jeans, well, generally, *forget it*. Regardless of sex.

You just *can't* do many jobs if you don't dress for them.
Try to walk in to the AT&T "Taj Mahal" and make a presentation in jeans...
FORGET IT.  You will not ever sell anything to them.  You could think of
yourself as the world's best presenter, but they'll never hear any of it.
And, that happens to be the *reality of the majority of the business world*.
If you don't sell to them, or you don't present well (read: effectively) to 
them (THEIR view), you *didn't do your job competently*. Period.

Should you, as a woman, be "super-stylish, sexy, slinky, low-cut, perm'ed, 
made up" etc., in those situations?  NO. [To me it's a turn off at those 
times...]. But well groomed, well dressed (i. e., well chosen, good quality, 
clean, pressed, relatively conventional clothing)? Yes.

SET/FLAME=OFF

Just a voice in the wilderness. I know...

/don feinberg

Re: .51
Men who cross-dress don't wear women's clothes to keep warm.

/chuck

    re: .54
    
    Yes, and what about shaving?  This a double edged (excuse pun, please)
    question, because I know men AND women who feel strongly about doing
    OR not doing it for men AND women.  (read: comments from anyone
    welcome here!)
    
    My feelings:
    
    I don't shave.  I don't much care if anyone else does or not (although
    I *would* miss my co-vivant's tickly mustache :-))  Now, I've had
    a few reactions to this.  First, my reasons for my choice were strictly
    practical.  I have sensitive skin and not much hair on my legs or
    underarms.  The fuzz looks and feels better (to me!) than perpetual
    razor burn.  My mother, upon checking out my underarms, said, "Gross,
    you look like an ape."  Well, I don't, (my opinion) but she thinks
    that any woman who doesn't shave daily is granted automatic ape-status.
    THEN, a feminist (woman) friend of mine checked out my legs (unshaven
    but virtually hairless) and said, "Gross, you shave, how sexist
    and demeaning."  %$#&^#$%#^^ you_can't_win!!!!!  
    
    Incidently, traditionally in Europe (and European readers, please
    tell me if this has changed) women who shaved were considered to
    be immoral at best.
    
    What does this crap mean?  Who has the right to tell us that we
    must torture our skin by scraping it with blades, pouring molten
    wax on it or any of those other icky hair removal techniques?
    Conversely, who has the right to deprive us of having silk-smooth
    clean shaven skin if that is what we desire?
    
    Rita
                 
    

    Sure we can dress for ourselves.  Anybody can do anything they
    please but IF they want or need something somebody has, they are
    not going to get it unless they play by that somebody's rules.
    
    IF my boss finds heels and stockings are more "professional" then
    IF I want to get a promotion and a raise I MUST compete.  Of COURSE
    I don't HAVE to.
    
    Somebody got disgusted with my sarcasm and said it turned those
    "tentatively trying to understand" into hardened something or others.
    Yup, I can see it.  We women, for eons, tentatively trying to please,
    and be taken seriously have become hardened.  You're allowed to,
    and so are we.  
    
    And someone else referred to one of my notes as "sexist dogma by
    a militant feminist" (Jeez, Jym, you usually seem so open and 
    understanding in your notes :-).
    
    I'm fighting fire with fire.  Sexist it is because that's what I'm
    fighting.  Militant feminist?  Hell, no.  I'm almost ALWAYS in heels
    and nylons, whaddyou think of that?  I wear makeup, blow dry my
    hair and keep clean shaven.  I'm a small, feminine-looking blonde
    and I like it that way because of what it's gotten me.  I know the
    rules and I play by them as much as I can because I know I will
    get nowhere bucking them.  Men still own my world and they wanna
    see the little lady's legs.  So usually I let 'em.  I hate it, but
    I'm not an island.  Other people's opinions COUNT.
    
    I could devote my life to making the world a better place for women,
    Gloria, Bella, Germaine, Marilyn and countless others HAVE, but
    I'm not that strong.  Most of us aren't.
    
    When we are truly free and equal, I expect within the next hundred
    years, life today will be looked back on as barbaric.  Most people
    look at life today in relation to the past and say it's great. 
    So it's how you look at it.  Half full or half empty.  I guess I
    visualize the ideal world and see contemporary repression as so
    forced.
    
    If you guys ever go looking for work, find that all the top companies
    are owned by women and all the guys dress like Don Johnson, (yech,
    but there aren't that many male fashion plates!), and the women
    dress comfortably and gather in groups to openly ogle, and see you
    as how you fit into their 'scene', then we can really have a serious
    discussion about it.  Right now, you win and I'll get dressed again
    tomorrow with the hope that you will at least let me play the game.
    
    Sandy
    
    

Gee, Rita, thanks for the tip on jazz pumps; now to find a Capezzio's!  Any
suggestions?

On shaving:  I probably shave once a month to avert problems of shaving it
when it's super-long (extra irritation).  I find it uncomfortable when it is
very long sometimes (gets pulled in exercise tights, hard to use deodorant.)  In
summer, I probably shave more often because I don't like the way it looks
(thanks to society, I guess!).  I never wear pantyhose when I can get away with
sandals, but I don't shave every day or so even then.  I'll always remember the
time I let my underarm hair grow so long my father ended up shaving it off for
me! (years ago...)

On folk-dancing:  Well, Bob, someday I'll get to Monday night in Concord, with
my peasant skirt billowing over my knee-socks. :-)

Jill

	"People who fight fire with fire end up with nothing but ashes."
						   -- Abigail van Buren.

re: .56 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >

Sandy,

 you present a fairly bitter view of the working world in parody, where
is it you live that men behave this way enough to make you this bitter?

Dave (from the UK).

    I'm not bitter.  I've accepted it.  I used to fight it but fighting 
    it is a full time job and women who are not nice, quiet, accepting 
    little girls content with the tokens men hand them get kicked out of 
    the game.  Men own the board, I know that now.
    
    I've developed my own protective mechanisms and coping devices,
    as I'll bet every woman with any fire in her has.  The first time
    you present something serious to a man and he pats you on the head
    and smiles, you learn.
    
    This notes file is a breath of fresh air where we can all let out
    what we really feel without serious consequences.  I do not conduct
    my life according to the way I feel about the power imbalance in
    the world.  If I did, I WOULD be bitter and "end up with ashes".  
    I've gotten ashes before.  I've demanded equality and been left in 
    the dust shaking my fist, in favor of some little Twinkie who says 
    "It's ok, you don't have to treat ME equal!".
    
    One man told me "Hell would freeze over", (he really said that!),
    before he'd give the job I wanted, (and was imminently qualified
    for!), to a woman.  Then a man got it.  A TRAINEE man!  Who asked
    ME questions.  That's ONE example.  I have many.  All women do.
    
    I'd turn myself inside out with rage if I let it get to me.  I'd
    BE as bitter as I sound in these notes.  But I'm not. You get wary.
    You get sharp.  You learn to protect yourself, and you learn to
    listen to your inner self and not depend on men for validation.
    And you learn that you CAN work harder and longer and produce better
    and that in itself becomes a source of pride and strength.  What
    I say in these notes describes the world as I see it but I have
    not gone into how I've dealt with it.  You've assumed I've dealt
    with it by becoming hard and bitter.
    
    I'm a very happy woman but I think happy women are more the exception
    rather than the rule.  Most women seem just plain pissed about the
    whole rotten hand they've been dealt from their first painful cramps
    through their singular responsibility for societal morality to the
    final injustice of being cast aside because age has robbed their
    looks.  I don't blame them.  But being a woman to me is mighty special.
    We hold the key to it all, and men control ONLY the man-made world
    which by comparison seems trivial.  I keep that in perspective and
    I am more than content. 
    
    Sandy

Re: .56

In the early 70's my friends and I liked listening/watching/dancing to a group 
called The Deadly Nightshade.  They played in a bar in Northampton, a small
(well, maybe not so small anymore) college town in western Massachusetts.  The 
song which follows was a guaranteed foot-stomper (and to our minds, their 
"trademark" piece) especially when it came time for "Mr. Big" to dance.  One of 
the band members held a jointed wooden stick figure that "danced" on a springy 
wooden slat (I think there's a name for these little guys, maybe a "jumping
johnny" or something like that).  Your description of the business world 
"turned upside down" brought this song vividly to mind.

CQ

-----------------------

"Dance, Mr. Big, Dance"

Well, hello, Mr. Big -- remember me?
You saw me for years, five days a week.
I'm your secretary, you called me "Rosemary,"
And I called you..."Mr. Big."

Well, hi there Harvey, I remember you well,
But don't let it trouble your mind.
I own this place, but it's no disgrace
That you're in the unemployment line.

You're in luck today--like I always say,
"Do unto others like they did to you."
And I'd like to employ such a good-looking boy,
So let's find out what you can do.

    Can you type?  Oh no?
    Can you file?  Oh no?
    And no, you cannot take dictation?
But yes, you can be flattered--those things don't really matter,
'Cause you got the real qualifications:

    Well, your clothes are all right (all right),
    But your shirt could be tighter (tighter, tighter),
And your nose is all right, but you'd look better ten pounds lighter
(You'd look better ten pounds lighter);

    You're so cute when you're mad (when you're mad),
    You're so cute when you laugh (when you laugh),
You'll be worth every cent of your dollar and a half (Dollar and a half).

But for the rest of your figure--Mr. Big, I've seen bigger,
So I'd best find out in advance:
Would you step up there on my easy chair?
Would you just roll up your pants?
Because I wanna see a little versatility--
Come on and dance, Mr. Big, Dance!

Dance, Mr. Big, Dance!  Dance, Mr. Big, Dance!
If you want to work for me, ya gotta Dance, Mr. Big, Dance!
'Cause everyone knows, what the boss says goes--
It ain't what you want to be, it's what can you do for me; so
Dance, Mr. Big, Dance!  Dance, Mr. Big, Dance!

    I loved the Deadly Nightshade!  I  must have attended at least 50
    of their concerts between 1973 and 1976.  I was practically a groupie.
    
    I wish I still had their album, because in the early days of the
    women's movement, they were one of the few groups who could raise
    major political issues,  and yet still do so with a sense of humor.
    
    They also had an amusing song called "Something borrowed, something
    blue" which presented some negative aspects of marriage.
    I didn't particularly like their second album, but I thought their
    first was wonderful.  There was also a song on it called "High Flying
    Woman".  For me, and for many of my friends that was one of the
    first postive images of women in music.  If I remember correctly, the
    group members were Helen Hooke, Pamela Brandt, and Anne Bowen.
    
    Oh, yes, and a great satirical song about getting a nose job to
    be more socially acceptable.  
    
    But "Dance Mr. Big" was one of their best numbers, and Anne "played"
    the Appalachian jumping jack which Christine described by dancing
    the doll on a flat board so that he really appeared to be dancing
    faster and faster.
    
    The Deadly Nightshade played a major role in my emerging feminist
    consciousness in the early 70's--I'm glad you mentioned them!

    I believe the wearing of rings through various parts of the body
    for 'civilized' people started with 'ladies of the evening' and
    was adopted by other women because they believed men found it
    attractive.  Make-up appears to have a similar history, or so I
    have read.
    
    I have been told by a number of women that they dress for other
    women.  No woman has ever told me she dresses for men.  The exception
    to this is underclothing.  This, in many instances, has been for
    men (I have been told).  No, what I have been told does not fit
    for all women or any group or a majority.

    re: -1  >I have been told by a number of women that they dress for
    other women.
    
    Perhaps, but it's not like you think.  Read through the replies
    again and you'll see the answers to my question, "If you were going
    away for a time where you would not encounter one male the entire
    time, would you pack the heels and hose?"
    
    All the respondents said no.  Some wouldn't even bother with makeup.
    
    So "dressing for other women" is really the same thing as a guy showing
    his new sports car or new bachelor pad to another guy.  He didn't
    buy it "for the guys" but "for the girls".  
    
    We "display" to each other, (of the same sex), to elicit envy in our 
    enhanced capacity to attract.  If there were nothing to attract, the 
    display behavior would be meaningless.  If women didn't have any
    interest in what kind of car a guy drove he would be much less likely
    to be boasting to his buddies about a very expensive,
    hard-to-find-parts-for sportscar.  And if men did NOT respond to
    makeup, high heels and hosiery, women would NOT get up earlier than
    everyone else just to put this stuff on!
    

    re -1
    I don't think dressing for other women is entirely as you describe
    it, nor do I think that the sample that voted against heels and
    hose was entirely representative. 
    
    There is status among some women that is separate from their vieing for
    men and it revolves around how well they succeed in the "womanly"
    sphere of activities. The women who write here may not play this
    game, but it is played and it can be viious.|
    
    I have neighbors who I would never ask into my house again after
    finding that the details of my (lack of house cleaning had made 
    the rounds of all the coffee klatches. And I know there are some
    women at work whose opinion of me is "she may think she's bright
    but she sure doesn't know how to dress well."
    
    So to say that women dress for other women means that they dress
    to the prevailing standards for many reasons, one if for men, one
    is to fit in, and another is that they like the way they look so
    it is for themselves.
    
    Bonnie

       I agree with .66 that women dress to "prevailing standards" for
       plenty of reasons other than dressing for men. I didn't answer
       the original question, but my answer is yes, under some
       circumstances I take heels and hose to an all-female gathering. 
       
       I belong to a public speaking organization (International
       Training in Communication) which at one time was all-female and
       is still largely female. Groups of clubs hold quarterly
       weekend-long meetings, sometimes at a private retreat.
       Participants generally dress as for a professional meeting, or a
       bit more casually; and most women consider "business dress" to
       include skirts, heels and hose. 
       
       One goes to these meetings expecting virtually all attendees to
       be women, so we clearly aren't dressing for men. What we're doing
       is recognizing the fact that a public speaker needs to cultivate
       a professional image, which means bowing to a convention that
       requires the wearing of impractical articles of clothing no
       matter what sex we are. Yes, we dress for other people, but in
       this case I think it's without regard to whether the others are
       women or men. 
       
					Val (wearing jeans and sneakers
                                             at the moment)