Hyped fashion blog The Man Repeller has almost nothing to do with men—except, possibly, to remind you that women don’t necessarily care what you think about their fashion choices.
I don’t know that a formal survey’s been done, but I think it’s safe to say that in the eyes of most straight men in America, turbans on a women’s head aren’t hot. Neither are ostrich-feather miniskirts, utility pants, or capes. To many guys, tight, 
form-fitting, and revealing fashions constitute “sexy.” And isn’t that what fashion is supposed to be all about? Getting us to look at one woman rather than another?
According to Leandra Medine, young designer and creator of The Man Repeller, the answer is no. Her site (which has been the subject of worldwide buzz) celebrates fashion that “proudly obstructs the male gaze” (The New York Times) and acts (in her own words) as “sartorial contraceptives.” (Think creative use of bow ties and harem pants, and you’re just getting started.) The fashion press has embraced Medine’s “man-repelling” aesthetic. Judging from the comments on sites that cover the beauty and clothing industries, The Man Repeller is a hit with many women.
Men, meanwhile, are confused, a bewilderment satirized at Jezebel in an April Fool’s post (“The Shocking Stupidity Of Women Who Hate Men.”) from fictional columnist Marjorie St. John-Blyth:
I simply loathe women who hate men. Websites like ManRepeller turn ostracizing men into a game, which is not only disrespectful but an act of self-hatred! Every woman must admit that she is on this planet thanks to a man. Women wish they had the qualities men have. Men are strong! Men are wise! Men built this country, and all of Western Civilization! For a woman, it is impossible to live without a man. Oh, one can survive. But to truly enjoy the lavish party life offers, a woman must have a male chaperone.
St. John-Blyth’s satirical piece sounds painfully close to the commentary that comes in painful seriousness from anti-feminist men and women who plead for a return to traditional gender roles. It spotlights the real power behind the “man-repelling” phenomenon that Leandra Medine has harnessed. Many women do want to wear things that block the ubiquitous, penetrating male gaze. And a lot of the time, women want to wear clothes that are about their own sense of what is fun or stylish—and not about what catches male attention.
♦◊♦
The Man Repeller offers a great challenge to men. First of all, it’s a good reminder that women don’t just dress to impress us. I grew up being told that women care about clothing for two reasons: one, they want to attract men; two, they want to defeat other women in that cutthroat, all-important competition to prove their allure. Women, the story goes, had to care about beauty in the past because it was a tool for survival, a weapon in the fight for scarce “good men.” That might have once been true, but it certainly isn’t true today, which is one of the reasons Medine’s site is getting so much attention.
The Man Repeller asks us guys to think differently about how we look at women. Growing up in American adolescent male culture, I was given a narrow definition of what was “hot.” Boobs were hot; legs were hot; butts were hot. I remember that in seventh grade, I had a serious discussion with my friends Bill and Troy about whether we were “ass men” or “boob men.” I don’t remember which one of them brought up those terms, but it did shape how I talked about—and how I thought about the female body for years.
Though I didn’t need to be taught to be sexually attracted to women, my desire was shaped and directed by porn, by peers, and by how everyone around me seemed to interpret fashion. It took a long time to let go of that poisonous lesson that women were, in Troy’s words, “all prudes or sluts or teases.” It took even longer to realize that women weren’t necessarily dressing for me or for anyone else but rather for pleasure of fashion for fashion’s sake. For those who haven’t yet learned that lesson, The Man Repeller is a good reminder.
♦◊♦
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to see a woman’s skin. There’s nothing wrong with being turned on by butts, or boobs, or legs. But there is something wrong with the single-minded focus that so many men have on those body parts alone. Almost every woman has had the experience of having a man talk to her chest, unwilling to tear his eyes from her breasts. It’s not that women don’t ever want men to notice cleavage, it’s that when a conversation is happening, they’d like our gaze eventually to move to their faces—and our attention to move to the person behind the body. It’s the difference between “looking at” someone and “seeing someone.” Unless we’re blind, we all start by doing the first. But we need to move on to the second, making the effort to see what lies beneath the immediate visual appeal.
Despite the name, The Man Repeller isn’t really about men. From a fashion standpoint, it seems aimed at encouraging women to follow their own aesthetic, absent the constant calculating about what’s hot or not. There’s something undeniably liberating about realizing that it’s OK to take a break, however brief or extended, from focusing on being desirable.
Still, guys do well to think about some of the other reasons why women are drawn to the fashions Medine promotes. Street harassment is still a worldwide problem, and while it can happen to women of any age no matter what they’re wearing, many men feel that they have permission to ogle or whistle at a woman in revealing clothing. To the degree that the “man-repelling” phenomenon is about protecting women from predatory male behavior, it ‘s a reminder to guys that we have a long way to go in terms of making public spaces safe for women. (And yeah, calling out male harassers is part of a good man’s job.)
The Man Repeller isn’t about hating men. It’s about the simple idea that women’s bodies don’t exist only for our pleasure, and that women’s fashion isn’t only about attracting and holding our attention.
Or maybe it’s just about celebrating ostrich feathers and harem pants.
—Image via The Man Repeller
About Hugo Schwyzer
You did it again Hugo. Thanks for bringing sanity to something that appears insane, but really isn’t.
Weird… so this is a fashion line for women who want to be seen as unattractive by men? Wouldn’t normal clothes (i.e., nothing revealing) suffice? If not, I hear the new line of burqas in lovely spring colors just arrived. Besides, wouldn’t dressing strangely get MORE attention? I don’t care either way, but it seems to me some women are seriously overestimating their looks and their effect on men. Guess what, “girlfriend”, I don’t care how you dress. In fact, I probably won’t give you a second look, and neither will most normal guys, except maybe to point out those ridiculous pants.
Wow, missed the whole point of the article. Did you even read it or just look at the title and rush to make an inane comment?
That sort of makes sense actually. When you look at most runway models, they don’t exactly have features that would be considered ‘conventionally attractive’ by most men. They’re tall, skinny, sort of emaciated and androgynous-looking. As for what’s considered ‘high fashion’… a lot of that stuff is Man Repeller material already.
Men’s magazines might not sell as well if they put a “skinny” model on it’s cover but that doesn’t mean men’s magazines don’t object women for unrealistic expectations in other ways. The girls on men’s magazines aren’t exactly size 12s with imperfections. Where a model might a size Zero, a girl on a man’s magazine might be a size 2 or 4. Not that big of a different. Men’s magazines girls tend to have to be upheld to a higher standard of bigger breasts and butts with skinny little tight bodies. Models tend to be tall, lanky, small breasted and butt girl. Both standards are unrealistic and objectifying. And the fact that awome nget these duel messages about their bodies, where both standards are unrealistic, is a lot for women to struggle with.
But thanks for bringing in the difference between models and male magazines. It’s a worthy seperation to see how women get messages about what their bodies should look like from both arenas. Men’s magazines aren’t more “kind’ to women then the model industry. It’s just a different set of standards.
The fetishization of youth and certain body types is pretty universal, actually. You might not see ‘average’ women in magazines, but neither do you see bald, beer-bellied guys. Magazines like Cosmo feature ‘hunks’ and ‘hotties’ while men’s magazines have ads and articles, all showing male models with perfect muscular bodies, six-pack abs, perfect hair and so on. But getting back to the original point, the fashion industry is indeed run by mostly women and gay men who don’t represent the ‘average’ person in standards or taste. And a good support of the argument that women dress for each other, not for men, is found in the fact that most regular guys will find a woman just as attractive in jeans and a t-shirt, not fancy big-name fashions.
As an off-topic comment, may I just add that it’s so nice and refreshing to have a discussion on some of these issues in a place that lets everyone speak and be heard equally. I’ve seen too many feminist blogs and forums where any disagreement is angrily shouted down and bullying/censoring are the order of the day. Keep it up, TGMPM
Soooo….this woman invents this ‘fashion’ line to free women from conventional stereotypes and expectations of men and society regarding the expectation that we be visually pleasing and sexually arousing…..click on the link to her site and see the sorts of models she uses hahahaha….they’re ALL conventionally beautiful, conventionally thin, and look absolutely ridiculous in these crap-ass clothes that no normal woman would wear.
Yes, I said normal. Deal with it.
If this designer was so committed to freeing women from the oppressive gaze of men, from the obvious insidious intent that permeates every look every man everywhere has ever given any woman…then why not use normal sized and average looking women to further prove the point? Isn’t that sort of part and parcel to this fashion revolution? Aren’t average looking women worthy of her “sartorial contraceptives”?
This chick has done more harm to women and women’s fashion than de la Renta ever dreamed of. Despite the flowery language of Hugo’s article, all this woman has done is told women that their only choice is to hide themselves….I guess if you like your women wide eyed and cowering in potato sacks then ok, right on…but honestly? For real actual live women, this is not a viable option.
1. It’s not a fashion line.
2. It’s the author, in clothes she owns.
3. That she likes to wear, even though they are not conventionally “sexy” or tight.
4. Reading is FUNdamental! You should try reading MORE than you comment. It’s useful!
So women want men to pay less attention to their looks, and they hope to accomplish this by making their looks (in this case REALLY ugly clothes) the focal point? Does this confuse anyone else?
I think women dress up mostly for other women. I don’t think this ridiculous clothing line has anything to do with men. And if it does, she probably (and wisely) marketed it that way to gain more notoriety and press for the release of her new line. And it looks like Hugo has bought into it completely.
Again, I’m not an MRA. But even I have to admit there’s a lot of “man blaming” going on around these parts. Now men are supposed to feel bad because some women think they have to dress in unattractive clothes? Bullshit. I don’t care how women dress.
And Hugo, I don’t think men are confused about this. Men don’t care because this is a dumb idea that isn’t even a blip on our radar screen.
You missed the point.
You are the reason for the ‘Man-Repeller’… the name is a joke.
It’s your sentiment that “I think women dress up mostly for other women” and that these are “ugly clothes” which spurred her to make such a website.
Example: in the mid-nineties there was a flower dress and combat boot trend which was decried by all media as very ‘unsexy’ and ‘man repelling’ … as if to say, women’s only job was to look good for men.
Her blog name is a sarcastic joke about people who dismiss fashion that isn’t skin tight and cleavage baring Sports Illustrated or Maxim fare.
“I don’t think this ridiculous clothing line has anything to do with men. And if it does, she probably (and wisely) marketed it that way to gain more notoriety and press for the release of her new line.”
My thoughts exactly, and it looks like it’s working.
I don’t agree with the article. Everyone communicates with the way he/she dresses. In youth culture fashion is a key element to distinguish the different sub cultures. A emo girl will repel a guy, who’s into hip hop and vice versa. With the way they both dress they are sending a message about, the music they like, their social circle, their view of the world, etc.
The same is happening in the example from the article. The ‘Man Repeller’-style is not repelling men. It’s repelling a sub-group or even the majority of men. But I’m sure a artsy-fartsy hipster would love to have a date with Leandra Medine.
BTW, men do it, too. Guys, who dress like Steve Urkel, rockin’ flood-watch trousers and horn-rimmed glasses, are probably repelling for a lot of women. But nobody would call it ‘woman reppeling’ aesthetic.
The Man Repeller blog is a variation of the hipster phenomenon, enriched with a pseudo-sophisticated philosophy about the male-gaze.
I’m portly and over 50, so I suppose what I “communicate” with my sartorial choices is, “I might as well be comfortable.”
I’m all for it. Female friend saw this post and said to me, “I’m looking for a date right now, I don’t want to lower my chances.” That’s when I realized that this type of clothing is perfect. Now the women I need to avoid will have on giant signs “not currently looking for attention.”
The great irony, of course, is that women trying to look repellant to men become all that much more attractive. I tell my wife all the time that I like her most when she isn’t trying to look beautiful. She just is.
Conventionally attractive women who are trying not to look beautiful will still be beautiful. Women who are not conventionally attractive dont need to worry. It doesnt matter how they dress. That’s why I find the Man Repeller aesthetic to be rather annoying since it’s aimed at conventionally beautiful women who find it clever to mess with social expectations — like young women dying their hair grey. Just wait a few years and they won’t need to dress to repel men. Aging will take care of it for them. LOL
The Man Repeller is a hilarious site. Any woman who has to go out on the streets of the city just to get around will tell you they often dress down to avoid any extra unwanted attention (other than being female in public). Now we can do it in fashion!
I’m amazed how Hugo constantly makes broad generalizations about how men view and interact with women.
Anyway, let’s not make this Man Repellent blog more that what it actually is. Which is an attempt for this woman to create shock with the title of this blog, push her own fashion agenda, and to play upon the insecurities of women. In no way am I trying to downplay amount of street harassment that takes place, but seriously sometimes women do dress in a way to garner male attention. And there isn’t anything wrong with that.
However, had this been a male blogger with the same agenda I’m QUITE CERTAIN that Hugo would take great offense to it. I’m sure he would have spun it in away that blamed this sort of agenda on “Rape Culture” and how this is an attempt to shift responsibility of managing men’s “dangerous and uncontrollable sexual appetite” on the shoulders of women.
/end rant
I adore Man Repller– it is a sad commentary on the state of things that “not intended for consumption by the male gaze” is equated with misandry. & sums up neatly a lot of the problems with some of the commenters.
If you’ve got something to say, mordicai, say it. If you’re just going to make snide remarks and oblique comments, the nearest feminist blog might be more your speed.
The gaze isn’t as ubiquitous or relentless as the Women’s Studies Department would have you think it is, Mordicai. You’ll have to speak for yourself on your own proclivities, I’m afraid.
Mordicai, are you intentionally misrepresenting the commentary by saying “not intended for consumption by the male gaze” is equated with misandry. ” or are you really just too stupid to understand the conversation that is actually taking place?
Nice piece Hugo.
This might have something to do with age too.
I always loved fashion growing up. I was voted best dressed in school. At that time, I dressed for me and what I liked based in fashion trends or not. Some of my guy friends would tease me good naturedly because they didn’t get girls fashion trends. But I didn’t mind. I liked what I wore. When I got into college, I did dress more sexy. It was a more sexually charged environment with more girls around to compete with. And at that stage of life, you’re sexuality is still new and exciting. When I got out of college, I was once again more interested in dressing based on what I liked first. I don’t dress for anyone but me and what I think looks good on me or what just makes me feel good. If I’m seeing a guy that likes a particular dress. I will wear it. But it’s still something from my cloest I like.
Hugo said:
“It took even longer to realize that women weren’t necessarily dressing for me or for anyone else but rather for pleasure of fashion for fashion’s sake.
Exactly! Fashion is just fun.It’s not always about competing with other women or turning men on.
From a fashion standpoint, it seems aimed at encouraging women to follow their own aesthetic, absent the constant calculating about what’s hot or not.
Is that not what women have been doing all this time? I do not know heterosexual men (or many homosexual men) who are at all concerned about women’s fashion aesthetic. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that scores of men sit around poo-pooing some women’s Target sweater or her audacity to wear last spring’s Prada collection. Far more often that judgment comes from other women, so this sexist notion that men are so obsessed with how women dress that women must now “follow their own aesthetic, absent the constant calculating about what’s hot or not” is just ridiculous. The very assertion that “almost every woman has had the experience of having a man talk to her chest, unwilling to tear his eyes from her breasts” suggests that it is not what women wear that attracts men’s gaze. Do you really think that if hot woman dressed baggy clothes that men would not look at her?
The Man Repeller isn’t about hating men.
Of course not, just like The All-American Basketball Alliance and the Former Majority Association for Equality are not at all about hating black and hispanic people. That said, it is rather curious how empowering women so frequently involves scapegoating, insulting, vilifying, and tearing down men.
It’s not the type of clothes that women are wearing. It’s tight-fitting clothes or clothes that show skin that this particular fashion is poo-pooing. And men only ever stare at a woman’s breasts when they’re outlined by tight-fitting clothing. I’ve never seen a man look at a woman in a baggy shirt, because no matter how big your breasts are, if you’re wearing baggy clothes, baggy clothes are going to hide the shape of your breasts, and I think most men would agree shapely breasts are more attractive than shapeless breasts.
If a woman dressed in baggy clothes, a man would be looking at her in a DIFFERENT way than he’d be looking at her in, say, a bikini. The male gaze constitutes more than just looking. The male gaze constitutes lust, and I don’t think there are any men out there that would look at a woman in baggy clothes lustfully like they’d like at a woman in a bikini.
People already think that “male gaze” constitutes more than just looking, so how would women dressing in baggy clothes change that?
I’ve never seen a man look at a woman in a baggy shirt, because no matter how big your breasts are, if you’re wearing baggy clothes, baggy clothes are going to hide the shape of your breasts, and I think most men would agree shapely breasts are more attractive than shapeless breasts.
Your mileage must vary from mine. You see the part of the script of being man says that we must want and lust for women all the time.
I’ll admit I’ve had conversations with guys in the commentary about a woman in sweatpants and sweatshirt was just the same as the commentary about a woman in a halter top and tight jeans. I think its a matter of being lustful and in the event of not being able to immediately see there is fall back to imagining what’s underneath.
I don’t get it. I’m a man and I don’t find these clothes repellent in the least. Am I missing something? Not the point that women have a right to dress for themselves, I get that. My girlfriend wears real fur in the winter and I’ve learned not to lecture her about about it.
The name of the blog is an intentional joke.
There are some inaccurate assumptions here about how men look at women on the street. If only it were that simple to just cover up more and dress a certain way and men will not look at you. As if “the straight male gaze” was that simple. I have heard many women say that they have been harassed when they were dressed frumpily, and they were really surprised how little it mattered what they wore.
Men who habitually look at women (and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing and I’m not saying that’s the same as harassment) will usually find something to be drawn to. In Victorian days, when proper women had floor-length skirts and long sleeves to cover themselves, the smallest hint of a bare ankle or bare wrist was highly erotic for a lot of men. It will take a lot more than bizarre clothing to squash the male imagination. I’m guessing even with full-body birkas women in Taliban Afghanistan still faced some prurient male stares on the street. Lust will win out, you might say.
In fact, I can see this backfiring in a lot of ways. There is a part of many men’s minds (I can’t be the only one) that may think “she’s purposefully trying to keep me from seeing her as sexually attractive. That’s kind of sexy she thinks about sex that much.” Or, I might start to associate all bizarre fashion with an attempt to block my sexual curiosity. I can imagine a man being somewhat confused by all this and asking a woman who’s wearing something grotesque, “Are you wearing that ugly thing because you don’t want me to ogle you?” So, now even anti-sexy clothing draws attention to sex. Nice work.
Speaking for myself, if you want to repel my “male attention,” walk around with a screaming baby in your arms or talk loudly and obnoxiously on your cell phone. I’ll avoid eye contact and walk the other direction.
Sorry, denim overalls won’t turn me off (easy access, easily removed, farmgirl fantasy, etc.)
Hey everyone:
The point is that the blog promotes an aesthetic whose goal is not seeking the lust of the traditional male gaze. This means fashion that deviates from the norm of legs, boobs and ass. So MRA’s have nothing to be upset about, because it’s promoting a look different from the one that they perceive is built to exploit the male libido. Everyone wins.
This article is correct is saying that the blog, which is named to be cutesy and attention grabbing, actually little to do with men.
Okay, let’s say there’s this thing called patriarchy that is set up to benefit me and my people (men) at the expense of women. It’s set up so that my people get what we want, so our sexual desires are the ones that dominate. Let’s say the women’s clothing and fashion industry is a tool of this patriarchy, that clothes design and fashion marketing is about making all my people’s wishes come true. Let’s say the fashion industry has been using all its tools – guilt, shame, peer pressure, body insecurity, etc. – to pressure women to look the way that I and other straight men want them to look.
If that’s the case, I and many other men are very dissatisfied with this tool that has been used in our name. This is a seriously malfunctioning, out-of-control instrument. I don’t know who my patriarchal representative is (what Misogyny District do I live in?) but I demand to speak to him at once. If this is where my masculine dues are going, I demand a partial refund.
I don’t see much evidence that high fashion’s idea of feminine beauty is the same as mine – they clearly aren’t getting their marching orders from me. There must be some mix-up in the instructions sent down from the Central Patriarchal Meme Committee. I don’t remember marking a form that I was attracted to women who look like clothes hangers or stick insects. I never got the questionnaire asking me what I thought about high heels – somehow I’m supposed to find them sexy, but I don’t.
I don’t see how this new line of clothing is somehow a huge departure from the oh-so-sexy haute couture that gave us a flashing ambulance light for a hat and a doghouse for a dress. (If that ensemble hasn’t been done yet, then I call dibs – it’s my idea!) Somehow all fashion catered to men’s sexual desire before this, and this is a big act of rebellion?
My people’s very expensive, temperamental instrument is getting blamed for a lot of things that are not my people’s fault. If it did what it was supposed to do, the women on the magazine covers and on the runways would look a lot different. I demand the manufacturer issue a recall and get back to the drawing board, because this thing ain’t working for me.
System Fail, I think your heart may be trying to go to the right place, but in effect what you’re saying is that you are dissatisfied with the terms of the Global Covenants Governing the Fair Use of Women. The woman-products displayed on magazine covers, etc., are not to your taste. You would prefer some others of a different type. This is not a radical sentiment. What is radical is right up there in the URL to this page: “the-man-repeller-not-about-men.”
You’re right, it’s not a very radical statement, and I did make a bit of a “straw person” argument. (See what I did there?) I didn’t really mean it as a radical statement, certainly not a revolutionary smash-the-system kind of statement. I also didn’t mean to suggest there’s no such thing as patriarchy, just to offer yet one more variation of the endless “Not All Men Are Like That” (NAMALT) argument.
I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt about my heart being in the right place, but I’m afraid I can’t take any credit for noble motives. I actually don’t think anything is wrong with a man being attracted to only rail-thin model body types. I don’t think he is necessarily brainwashed or misogynistically twisted, I just happen to have different preferences. I think he faces a real challenge finding real-life women who look like the magazine covers, even if he lives in Manhattan, but that’s not my call to make for him.
Basically, if there are photos of women in my visual field when I go shopping, or photos of women in magazines I read at the vet’s office, I would prefer that the photos are of women I am attracted to, if my preference mattered. I admit, hardly radical, hardly feminist, hardly progressive. Maybe I’m just another variant of misogynist, but at least we can agree that women’s fashion doesn’t benefit all men, not even all sexist men.
There are lots of men like me who are just bewildered at the idea that we are somehow to blame for women starving themselves, ripping their hair out, injecting poison into their foreheads, and twisting their ankles in high heels in order to look good for us. Don’t blame me for that sick stuff. Stop doing it and you may be pleasantly surprised.
P.S. If you’re shaving your armpits and wearing bras, I will take responsibility for that, if you’re doing that for men. Fair is fair.
You mean more like Boobs on Sticks like Sports Illustrated vs. Sticks on Sticks as in Vogue?
lol
I agree that I’m not really seeing the context that informed this piece, and appreciate your assertions that you don’t subscribe to the Current American Ideals of Sexiness ™.
That said, plenty of men still do. And plenty of men won’t think about what’s being said in the article, and will take that website as simply hating, or perhaps *thwarting* men. And plenty of men (and women) won’t take the time to objectively realize that disliking a particular outfit is not the same as ridiculing the woman wearing it. So, while your satire is entertaining, I still think this piece has a place.
Saying that the fashion industry is totally controlled by straight women and gay men is an overstatement, and it sounds a bit like gay-baiting. But, I think there is something to the fact that there seems to be a relatively high proportion of people in the fashion industry who are deciding what feminine beauty is who are not actually attracted to women. They have just as much right to make those decisions as anybody else, there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s not some massive conspiracy, but it’s hard to say they’re lockstep agents of hetero male patriarchy.
To me, the fashion industry seems really brutal and inhuman to women. It presents a really extreme body ideal. But, it’s a great example of the fact that not all cruelty towards women can be traced to male desire. This is one of those areas where women are largely doing it for themselves and to themselves.
I think it’s kind of a chicken-and-egg thing at this point. While women/gay men may be the progenitors of the materials, are they the progenitors/enforcers of the attitude? Or are they just continuing to produce what sells? Our society hates “fat people,” and therefore there is a constant voice in everyone’s head that they have to manage their weight. The fashion industry just takes this to extremes, while the TV/movie industry seems to polarize the genders: fat men get women, fat women get skinny (and then maybe get men).
It’s true that the fashion industry is extreme to the point of insanity, but I think it’s unfair to lay all of this at their feet. I don’t think they started the anti-fat-people campaign; they’re just capitalizing on it.
Fair enough. I would agree that it’s not just one group controlling another group; it’s sort of symbiotic or chicken-and-egg. The fashion industry is about selling things, so it does have to capitalize on what consumers already desire. But, designers are also artists pushing the style envelope, and they are trend-setters to some degree, telling people what looks good. There’s a bit of push and pull. Not being attracted to the models one designs for is, I imagine, creatively liberating.
Bravo. I am in love with this project.
On the subject of street sexual harassment, where do you think the solution lies? A typical day out in a typical Indian city translates into at least two incidents of harassment. And it doesn’t stop at ogling.
“Western” and “Third World” are not antonyms.
I just thought I’d point this out.
Hooray for Western Purdah!
I’m encouraged that women in the west are now being invited to be as liberated as their sisters-in-struggle in Afganistan, who have long known how to shield themselves from the sexualizing male gaze.
No, seriously, this initiative has three major weak points as far as I can see…
First of all, women generally don’t dress according to what men find sexy, but according to what women think is appropriately sexy. Women spend tons of time and effort on hair, clothes and make-up that, frankly, most men simply don’t notice. Western purdah has been tried before (in the early 1970s) and it failed, not because men oppressed said women, but because other women tended to assume that women who dressed in this fashion were lesbians. Women’s homophobia is what ends up making initiatives like this fail.
Secondly, men’s tastes differ radically, in spite of what bio-determinist MRAs might think. Frankly, I personally find women who dress like the photos above to be hot as hell. My eye would be DRAWN to such women, not repulsed.
But finally, many people have brought up the point that fashion rarely caters to straight men. This should be obvious if one were to look at the fashions which do indeed cater to straight men: those used by prostitutes on public display. In order to get men to notice them, these women need to exaggerate the sexual signs displayed by “normal” female clothing to beyond eleven – to a degree FAR beyond what a non-pro woman would generally feel comfortable with.
This is the ultimate reason why Leandra’s fashion initiative doesn’t work: sexual signs which attract mens’ eyes are in relation to normal female attire, they are not an absolute set. If we all walked around naked every day and that were normalized, prostitutes would be putting flashing lights on their nipples and asses. And likewise, if western purdah were “normalized”, certain women would STILL feel the pressure of the male gaze and be advocating for dressing in shapeless sack-cloth and ashes.
Thus, from a pure “sociology of desire” viewpoint, it makes as much sense for Leandra to advocate for full public nudity as for non-revealing clothes. In a nudist society, the woman in shorts and a tank top is considered to be a prude and suffers less male “eye pressure”. But then again, a nudist society wouldn’t have much use for clothing designers, would it?
So tell me Hugo: when is Leandra going to come out with a line of burquas?
Why is the West more liberated than Afganistan when it comes to fashion? CHOICE.
Women who want to walk around in purdah might be looked at strangely, but they’re generally tolerated. And women who want to do everything up to full nudity are also tolerated.
By making all about your desire or lackthereof… you missed the whole point of the article.
It’s not about ‘repelling’ or ‘attracting’… it’s about not giving a damn.
She doesn’t give a ___ if you think her boyfriend jeans are ugly or cute or whatever.
She is wearing them because she likes them.
Women wear to impress other women and compete with them. We don’t care about our boyfriends or husbands’ opinions.
“By making all about your desire or lackthereof… you missed the whole point of the article. It’s not about ‘repelling’ or ‘attracting’… it’s about not giving a damn.”
I guess I’m confused, then. The language in the article suggested that these clothes were designed to be unattractive to men on purpose. If something is designed to “repel” something else, then the thing being repelled is the big reason. If I wear insect repellent because I don’t want to be bitten by mosquitoes, then it’s mosquitoes’ desire that is central to my decision. (Hmm, now I’m imagining a new line of foul-smelling perfume to repel male attention as well….)
I agree that women should dress the way THEY want and not based on male desire, either to attract or repel, but that’s not the point of these clothes. If the article is suggesting that the Man Repeller approach is misguided, I agree.
The title of the blog is a joke. It’s really sarcastic.
In the mid nineties a lot of fashion for women was deemed ‘not sexy enough’ (ie. the prairie dress and combat boots trend… or the flannel grunge trend… etc.)
In fact, lot of the fashion was called ‘man repellent’… hence… the author of this blog turns that into her personal catchphrase….
I will proudly wear whatever strikes my fancy despite what ‘the forces that be’ think. Man repellent thus is a very ironic joke.
Sara, as Fernanda and I have both pointed out, the people who women “give a damn” about when they dress are other women, not men.
So no, I’m not missing the point of the article, which is that Leandra’s clothing supposedly “proudly blocks the eyes of men”. The point is that “normal” fashion is somehow not female-centric and Leandra’s is when, in fact, it is almost entirely so. I’d hazard a guess that 90% of the fashion dollar in the world is spent by women.
And no, women do not give a flying fornication about what men think when they dress. In fact, if men were to have a collective opinion about women’s fashion, it probably wouldn’t be “hubba hubba, ding ding, baby! Show me soime skin!”: it would most likely be “Tell me once again why you think you need forty pairs of uncomfortable shoes.”
I lay you dollars to donuts that in five years we won’t be hearing word one about Ms. Medine’s fashion initiative – almost certainly because the female market will reject it.
As a woman I can tell you… we don’t wear heels for our health.
I’d burn every last one in the universe if it were up to me. Seriously.
If you look at clothing that is mass produced… more of it falls in line with what you think men want to see.
Haute couture… which is what her blog mostly deals with… is something very few people engage with and no one on a daily basis.
And as a man, I can tell you: vanishingly few women get turned down by a man for love, sex, friendship, or respect because of shoes. Most men couldn’t even tell you what shoes their girlfriends, wives, or colleagues wore after being with them all day.
Seriously, Sara: if you’re wearing high heels, it’s not because the Patriarchy Police will order you socially shunned by men if you don’t.
Who notices women’s shoes, Sara? Ask yourself that qeustion and respond to it honestly: it isn’t the vast majority of men, it’s women.
And no, women do not buy clothes based on what they think men want to see. Give me a break, Sara! I go shopping with women ALL THE TIME and have been doing so since I was a young lad being raised by a single parent mother and her female friends. Men are so notoriously opaque to women’s fashion choices that it’s become a comedy trope all over the west.
I’m sorry, Sara, but you’re going to have to pin women’s sartorial choices on someone other than men. We don’t make them and frankly could care less about them. The kind of “sexy” the patriarchical male notices is way beyond the comfort level for any woman who’s not openly selling sex.
As an aside, girls play with dolls all over the west and are sociallized to be incredibly sensitive regarding said dolls’ wardrobe. Typically, the female eye has been conditioned from birth to note the most minute differences in tone, color, style shape, texture and what-not of the most outré fashion items imaginable.
And you’re telling me that all of this is because men care deeply about women’s fashion, Sara? Men – most of whom, on a good day, can barely get their heads around the fact that they shouldn’t combine solids and patterns – are the Secret Masters of Women’s Fashion.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight….
And women secretly drive the military-industrial complex, Sara.
“And as a man, I can tell you: vanishingly few women get turned down by a man for love, sex, friendship, or respect because of shoes. Most men couldn’t even tell you what shoes their girlfriends, wives, or colleagues wore after being with them all day.”
I agree, though I think shoes may not be the best example. (All those foot fetishists and everything.) An even better example would be purses. If a woman blows an entire paycheck on a designer handbag, it is most definitely NOT in order to attract a man.
Give me a break, Thaddeus! I *am* a woman. I go shopping ALL THE TIME. And omigosh… can you believe it? I know some men too!!!
Men are not opaque to women’s fashion choices in the least. They observe them much more than they let on. They tally and rank. They praise and chide. Gay and straight. When I ‘glam up’ the comments are mostly from men. Usually seek to reward my display of masochism ie. heels with praise.
Women do not comment to me about heels. Men do. Men notice the difference from my sneaks one day to heels the next. Comedy tropes =/= reality.
Sara, I’m not making an absolutist argument: I’m making a generalization. A very easily researched and supported generalization. And here you are, taking me ot task because not 100% of men are opaque to women’s fashion.
That was never my argument in the first place. The majority of men – I’d say the vast majority – are effectively opaque to all but the most obvious components of women’s fashion. THAT is my ´point.
Like I said above, I study prostitute’s clients for a living. Yes, men DO rank women. All the time. But I have NEVER, EVER heard strsaight men rank women based on what they are wearing., They rank them based on the size of their tits, their asses, their general overall demeanor. I have never heard a het man go “Gee, y’know she’d be really sexy, but that ensemble just doesn’t do anythign for her. I give her a 7.”
What do they say? “Shit, look at the ass on that babe! She’s an 8, at least.”
And yes, fashion does accentuate secondary sexual characteristics. However, even if you dress in order to show off your ass to the guys in the barroom window, I think it’s pretty safe to say most women don’t. In fact, most women get appalled when they hear those sorts of somments.
Men comment to you about your heels? I think you work around some very different and unusual men, then. Most men are not looking at a woman’s shoes when they scope her out and, if they’re not scoping her out, most men are usually not even aware of what she’s wearing.
Now, you might say this all works on a subconscious level. OK. Perhaps. But then again, if it’s all working subconsciously, how are these all-powerful patriarchs “controlling” women’s fashion?
I wonder if your perceptions would be different if you were speaking to men about women who are not sex professionals. I wonder if the men’s evaluations of the women’s appearances might not be so directly predicated on her sexual assets. For example, if you ask a man about the appearance of Tila Tequila, he will probably focus on her sexualized appearance, because that is the bulk of her presentation. But if you ask a man about the appearance of Sen. Hilary Clinton, do you believe that the size or pleasingness of her ass will still be the immediate focus? Your sample is skewed.
Also, high heels were developed because the posture they create in women who wear them–breasts out, butt out, legs elongated, back curved–mimics and enhances sexual positions. I’m not saying it’s not women’s choices to wear heels, but there is a significant social reward (and male attention reward) for doing so, and I would reckon that most women are as ignorant as you are about high heels’ origins and uses. This is why you don’t see strippers in flip-flops, even though that, unfortunately, flies in the face of all your Brazilian academia.
Silly us. Of course you are right. I compliment women on their dress, haircut, and makeup all the time. I learned how in the patriarchy handbook. You know the one they pass out to all born with a Y chromosome at birth, but we never see. Thankfully, it is well read by the women in our lives who gleefully and persistently instruct us to notice and compliment them on their dress, haircut, and makeup. Or else!
Well, I should qualify that my remarks are based on what I know about so-called “western” cultures primarily.
It would be biodeterminism if I said that biology determines what we find to be sexy. What I’m saying is that “sexy” clothing is understood by men as such IN COMPARISON with a given group’s “non-sexy” clothing. That’s a symbolic – or cultural – difference that’s being judged there, not a biological one.
I guess you could say that people’s ability to manipulate symbols is, ultimately, biologically based. I wouldn’t object to that.
As for MRAs not being bio-determinist, but bio-social… First of all, a good part of what masquerades out there as “bio-social” is in fact bio-determinism: to with, most of evpsyche. Secondly, while I do agree that there are many types of MRAs, the movement as a whole is notorious for it’s use of concepts like “the alphabetized male” (alpha, beta, gamma males and etc.) which tries to reduce human social dynamic to some sort of instinctive reaction to authority, generally biologically-based.
A Hook, “political correctness” is such an abused term that it means precisely jack shit. As far as I can see, people trot it out as something of an ad hominem. It means “I do not have the information necessary to actually engage with your point, so I’m going to claim that the only reason that you’re making it is that you’ve been brain-washed by commies, you dirty hippy, you.”
The superorganic concept of human culture was developed in the 1920s, mostly by immigrant German social scientists who had little sympathy for radical politics of any sort. So perhaps it would be better to deal with the points people like Kroeber, Boas and Simmel actually made, rather than accusing a shadowy commisariat of perverting science?
As for “symbols being cultural manifestations of biology”, no one doubts that humanity’s ability to manipulate symbols is, in fact, biologically based, nor does anyone doubt that biology limits us in our symbol-making capacities.
But to say that the CONTENT of the symbols is biologically determined – that is a radical hypothesis which needs to be backed up by equally astonishing proof: proof which, up to now, has simply not been forcoming, in spite of heroic efforts to find it.
I consider biodeterminism to be crap because of its long and well-documented history. of spectacular failure and the obvious lack of reflexivity of most of its practicioners. Every generation of physcial scientists so far has come up with a theory that supposedly “proves” that all human behavior is instinctual and biologically driven and all of these theories have fallen flat on their faces. Biodeterminists are rather like the creationists of the behavioral sciences: their faith drives them on, even though generations of “proof” and hypothesis have unravelled beneath their feet.
As Kroeber pointed out almost a century ago, the biological needs of humanity are actually quite narrow and small: eat, excrete, shelter, reproduction, etc. The VAST variety of ways in which we go about meeting these needs is breath-taking and that variety – while driven by biology – cannot logically be determined by it. I’ll return to the metaphor I’ve used elsewhere: biology makes you want to eat: CULTURE is what makes you choose between grubs and pizza, both of which are perfectly adequate foods for humans.
In reply to A Hook:
“Technological evolution and geographic location is the difference between grubs and pizza.”
I can see your point about geography and technology changing quite a bit over time and from place to place, but there’s still a role to play for culture. What people consider edible is quite variable from culture to culture, it changes over time within the same culture, and today parts of the world import their favorite foods from thousands of miles away.
Industrialized societies today could easily mass produce grubs and snails on an industrial scale, if the demand was there. There are people in many parts of the world who find cheese on that pizza just as disgusting as I would find eating slugs. Maybe slugs will come back into fashion some day.
Exactly, Anon. Where I grew up, sushi would be considered a food on the order of grubs.