Clothes and sexism

As discussed previously, I'm evil and sexist.  Accepting that, I'm going to point out a few things about fashion.  Don't worry, this will be short.

First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone.  Women's clothing is horrific and sexist.  No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.

That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too.  Professional clothing.  For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin.  This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects.  As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense.  Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much.  Men are expected to wear pants.  Not shorts, pants.  In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.

I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable.  Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men.  There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits.  We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket.  The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open.  And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph.  Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted?  Probably.  I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional.  I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants.  If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts.  I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.

"So, what's the problem?" you might ask.  Well, it's 2-fold.  First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about.  Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear.  The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one.  By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer.  In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside.  But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to.  Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.

So, there's my rant on clothing.  Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion.  Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's).  But you know what?  You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.

I am Become Trump (aka the problem with shame tactics)

O.k., so clearly I've been shamed into hating myself by people who's purpose in shaming me was to get me to fight harder for their cause.  People use shame in this way a lot and it seems they do so more and more.  This tactic is alarming and sometimes gets people to think about the issues and to change their ways... the problem is, what happens if that tactic turns someone off and in fact changes the person's ways so they are fighting less for the cause, and sometimes even fighting against it?  

Prime example: I feel shame for being a man.  I recently felt that I couldn't say something (I even edited a paragraph out of my recent post... yes, that post was edited, hard as that might be to believe). This reminds me of Trump's statement that men are afraid to say things about women.  Now, to be clear, I do not support Trump... but this one statement of his rings a bit true.  And let the further shaming begin.  Just as women's rights groups were quick to respond saying that while Trump is afraid of women saying things, women are afraid of real things, like rape, sexual abuse, regular physical abuse... I expect you're saying this right now.  I am shamed, but Trump's statement is also ringing truer to me.  

We have to be careful how we use this tactic, for it can easily have side-effects we weren't expecting. And maybe that's fine with you.  Maybe you've already made the calculation that your side will gain more out of the shaming than it will lose.  If so, my hat is off to you, as is my support.

Sincerely,

Privileged Ill Intent

p.s. - do Trump and The Kingpin now remind you of each other?

I am the Ill Intent

I understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be black in this country.  I understand and respect that.  I've learned, over the last couple years, that I shouldn't comment on the opinions of blacks nor the tactics of those fighting injustice.  I've also learned that I am the adversary of those fighting injustice, simply by not fighting that injustice every day myself... in truth, I do not fight that injustice every month or nearly at all.  I used to like to think that I was a supporter of equal rights and privileges between races, but I have been told on several occasions that those who do not fight for those things are the adversary... so I am trying to accept that I am that adversary.

I also understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be a woman in this country.  I am slowly coming to terms with this.  I have been informed recently that, here too, if I am not fighting the injustices placed upon women every day, I am the adversary of women's rights.  I am slowly realizing that I cannot make judgements about how important things are, such as the first woman to be the Presidential nominee of a major political party in the US.  I apologize to any who I have offended by belittling this accomplishment of Clinton's by comparing the US to other nations around the world or by suggesting that it is equally, if not more important to agree with the politics of the candidate you're in favor of.  I am a man, and have been told that I am therefore complicit in the rape-culture we have here in the US, which is disturbing to me, but I am working on accepting this too.

I'm going to digress here a bit and do something unusual for my posts.  I would like to ask for the opinion of women who are reading this post.  Would you be equally as excited the momentous occasion of the Republicans nominating Carly Fiorina, if they had, as you are about the Democrats nominating Clinton?  My feeling is that you would be, but I'd genuinely like to know what you think.  I'm not saying you'd be as in favor of Fiorina becoming President, just excited by a major political party in the US nominating a woman.

Ok, digression ended.  I imagine that I will learn in the coming years that I am equally complicit in other social injustices... whether it be toward Hispanics, Asians, transgender, homosexuals, bisexuals, ... the list goes on.

I would extend this philosophy to include that I am the enemy of the green movement.  After all, I drive my Prius to work rather than bicycle or take public transportation.  I use more electricity than my house will hopefully soon produce using roof-mounted solar panels.  I eat meat, which is not as environmentally friendly an option as being a vegan.  The list goes on.  I am coming to terms with this as well.

O.k., so I'm essentially evil and an advocate for all that I feel is wrong... It's an interesting dichotomy that I am working my way through understanding.  I have been working on it for years now and it may well take the rest of my life to fully understand it, but I do know one thing: this further explains my self-loathing and my feelings of obligation.  I would like to take a moment to apologize to all who I have harmed in the past and all who I will inevitably harm in the future, whether physically or emotionally, whether through action or by expressing my opinion or by expressing facts which are not as pleasing to hear or as helpful to the narrative that they would like made at a particular time.

A speech from the Netflix DareDevil series comes to mind and I will leave you with it:

"I'm not a religious man, but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story... There was a man, he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his clothes, they beat him, and they left him bleeding in the dirt. And a priest happened by, saw the traveler, but he moved to the other side of the road and continued on. And a Levite, a religious functionary, he came to the place, saw the dying traveler, but he, too, moved to the other side of the road, passed him by. But then came a man from Samaria, a Samaritan, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Samaritan tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine, and he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Samaritan, he continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his city and all the people in it. I always thought I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be deceived by their true nature. ... It means that I am not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on."