PLEASE GENDER-SWAP EVERYTHING, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TERRIBLE YOU ARE YET

THE LAST OF US

The world has been overrun with zombies, as usual, and the only people who survive are rugged individuals and bands of armed mercenaries.  You play as an ordinary tween girl, El, tasked by a boy you love and trust with protecting a headstrong middle-aged man, Joely, who may hold within his delicate body the key to human salvation.  For the first half of the game, you must use your skills to keep him safe, though eventually you trust him enough to give him his own pistol and he assists you during fights.  You grow to bond with your grizzled middle-aged companion through a series of incidents, while stubbornly denying that he is nothing more to you than a surrogate for your own father.  When you are gravely injured, Joely feeds you and brings you medicine, but while he is on his own he is captured and held by the tween leader of a cannibal cult, forcing you to torture and kill the cult members you capture before mounting a raid on their compound to rescue him.  

In an innovative twist, you are briefly allowed to play as Joely (though admittedly only while El is incapacitated by injury).  The writers have gone out of their way to present the men in this game as having their own agency and goals, a laudable change from the passive wriggle-and-squeal tropes of men in video games.  Also refreshingly, no one suggests that the cannibals will abuse Joely sexually (perhaps because of his age), only that they are likely to eat him.  The violence, however, is still quite shocking: especially when you play sidekick, the animations have you stabbing girls many times in the eyes, neck, and groin to disable them.  The context cues of the game ensure that whenever El kills a girl, you know you are killing a human being with personal relationships to her sisters-in-arms, and one of the last human survivors of the apocalypse--all the more distressing because the game frequently requires you to kill all the girls in an area before you can progress.  

The visuals, writing and music in the game are all top-notch, but it suffers from being mired in a survivalist fantasy that has always been about honoring and privileging feminine skills at the expense of masculine ones.  The world of The Last of Us is designed to make technological consumerism, lawn-mowing, and high-shelf-reaching look like ridiculous, obsolete skills; mending, cooking, conflict resolution and child-rearing are the valued skillsets of the post-apocalyptic age.  It gives me pause that so many of our modern fantasies are about this type of world.  It seems to presage a generation of women dreaming about a world where they can be respected for their base animal qualities, without having to worry about male concerns or social pressures.  I shudder to think about the position of men in such a world.  

tone it down

For the moment, let's turn our focus on the notion of a person being "attention-seeking."  This is the concept we draw on when we sigh "he just wants attention, ignore him", or sneer "shut up, you attention whore."  We might describe Lady Gaga this way, or Louis Spence, or a small child--anyone shrill or grating.  It's a catch-all term of abuse for anyone whose behaviour is outré in a way that people consider otherwise unjustifiable.  This is a term of discipline, meant to evoke shame.

This first started niggling at me when I was seventeen.  My high school's yearbook committee had planned a page devoted to photos of couples kissing (which was dumb), and administrators had excised a photo of a pair of my lesbian classmates from the final product while preserving the rest of the page (which was dumber).

The message was clear: the school didn't see our relationships as valuable or meaningful in the same way as our heterosexual classmates, but rather as obscene. The administrators advanced two arguments in their defense: first, that the young ladies involved would benefit from not having a permanent record of a relationship they might later characterize as a youthful indiscretion (a courtesy not advanced to a straight couple who had vowed on the page that they would be "still together ten years from now" but who had broken up between the taking of the photo and the yearbook printing); and second, that any further debate over the fairness of this decision would distract other students from their important studies.

Naturally, we organized a kiss-in.  That is to say, we called up the local newspaper and tv news and told them that all the high school students would be kissing each other in a variety of gender permutations out on the school lawn one afternoon.  The form of this protest was considered.  It held up as ludicrous the idea that being photographed kissing your girlfriend might be shameful, and demonstrated that failing to value us queers as students was going to be more distracting than just treating us like everybody else.  It referenced the golden era of American protest, and it had a hook to draw in the media (hot teen sex lawn).  We did get a good amount of coverage, and although we had to add our own lesbians to the yearbook that spring, they made damn sure to acknowledge the existence of queer students in the following years.  It was also, incidentally, the first time I ever kissed someone.  A successful protest all around, I would say.

So it was with some dismay that I read a letter in the paper (an early form of online commenting!) the next day, admonishing the editors for deigning to attend the protest, grousing about all the "giggling bisexuals" on the local news, and generally complaining that it was clear that all the protestors wanted was attention.  Well, yeah.

The more I considered it, the more of a mystery it became to me.  Attention seems like such a Maslovian need--would we sigh "ugh, what a food whore" when we see a starving man?  "She's only doing that because she's looking for a sense of security and belonging in a group."  Attention is how we understand ourselves to have a reciprocal social connection with others.  Not being attended to frequently by people in your life fucks with your sense of self.  Ask a homeless man, charged with the task of soliciting permission to survive from every passerby, how dehumanizing a lack of attention can be. 

Then I started looking at whom the epithet was directed--first, children and reality show subjects.  Second, trolls and bullies.  And thirdly, women in the public eye, queers of all stripes, and people of color who complained of institutionalized racism.  People it's not applied to include parents, reality-show creators, the owners of sports franchises, and straight men in general (hard to be attention-seeking when your gaze is constantly subjectified). 

So.  The framework that's being encoded in the pejorative use of "attention-seeking" is that some people have an excessive desire for our finite attention, like small children, and that ignoring them will serve both to punish them for their bad behaviour and to help them grow up into strong, capable straight white men who dress conservatively.  This is untenably paternalistic, and I reject it.

There is, however, one instance in which I support the diabolization of attention-seeking, and, spoiler warning, it's when corporations do it.  I am profoundly annoyed whenever I see a corporate blog post end with an exhortation to "join the conversation!" or "tell us what you think!"  It's a lazy and useless attempt at online community-building, one which attempts to shunt all the work of fostering a discussion space onto commenters.  Moreover, it's one part of a creeping systemization of creatives working for free (not, as I wrote initially, "pro bono") to make profits for corporate stockholders--regard the ads you see regularly nowadays which ask you to produce content for more advertising campaigns, presenting this as a fabulous creative opportunity rather than a pure scam.

It's really getting to the point where capital is in such a strong negotiating position that it can demand years of free service from a worker before paying him, that he may prove a faithful and uncomplaining employee.  We can fight this, but we need one thing.  Workers of the world: get attention.

let's pretend I have a tumblr

Lately I've been feeling a little like it was time for another of the periodic stylistic shakeups that we go through in our lives, so I started outlining the kind of themes and roles that I aspire to in my dress, based on Russell T. Davies' essay about pretending.  Davies, you may recall, is the creator of the initially warmly welcome (but later deeply mortifying) David Tennant series of Dr. Who.  [EDIT: Actually the man from that link is a different Russell Davies. My apologies for accusing him of responsibility for Love & Monsters.]

I thought I'd say a bit about the things I pretend from day to day.  A couple of sartorial constraints inform my choice of fantasy roles: I like to keep a lot covered (if only technically); I tend to wear browns, greens, and golds; I like flat-soled, lace-up boots and long coats; and I'm quite messy and disorganized.  And I want to be desirable--not necessarily desired, but maybe like an acquired taste.

Hippie
In truth, I am a bit of a hippie--I'm pacifistic, left-leaning, and my standards of personal hygeine are relaxed.  Only the passage of years and the development of the internet prevent me from really joining any kind of social movement.  "Hippie" as a style, though, covers a lot of ground.  Let's say it's round wire-frame glasses, flowing cotton prints, Indian influences, hair, and sandals.

Witch
My first association with a witch these days is Anthy from Revolutionary Girl Utena.  Anthy is Ishtar, re-interpreted as a devil in a newer patriarchal myth structure, but to my mind a witch isn't so much a force of nature (a la S6 Willow) as a woman who leverages a bit more personal power and fearsomeness than would generally be considered acceptable to get what she wants (a la Granny Weatherwax).  I find this image of the unregenerate scary spinster to be somewhat romantic.  So: Fluevog witch boots, black dirndl skirts abbreviated to the low calf, that whole 19th-century librarian vibe.

Amy Pond
The newest Dr. Who makes the next-newest Dr. Who look shameful and silly.  One of many reasons for that is the character of Amy Pond, who is some kind of goddamn sexual tyrannosaur.  Did you see the Comic Relief special?  The contents of Amy's panties nearly caused her men to become permanently lost in time and space.  That's not even mentioning the power of Pond's crack or her Pandorica Box.  On account of being so fucking foxy, Pond basically clomps about in a man's shirt or sweater, a short skirt, colored nail polish, and Converse.  Like the 80s with flat hair. 

Flapper
The meaning of this iconography, like any of the sexualised roles I've listed, is fraught.  There's the romance of the sexual revolutionaries: Louise Brooks, Zora Neale Hurston, Josephine Baker, Tallulah Bankhead--but all these women were subjected to terrible abuse and exploitation because of their sex. The twenties was this period of incredible sexual objectification and subjectification of women, not unlike today.  Unlike today, the silhouette is boyish instead of hyperfeminine: dropped waist, longish skirts; tight hats with little to no hair visible; sculpted-heel mary-janes or t-straps.

Pre-Raphaelite
Another artistic/fashion movement which was about glorifying and exploiting sexy women in equal measure.  Long cotton-lawn gowns or tunics, tight sleeves.  Velvet if you absolutely must. 

Gunne Sax Girl
It's a sort of 1970s interpretation of the Laura Ingalls Wilder look, with lace and calico aplenty.  Prairie Underground (aside from having the perfect name) is currently producing some fine pieces in this idiom (albeit not in calico).  Occasionally Free People as well.  I can't quite afford either.

memento mori
A bunch of my fashion life has been spent orbiting goth--trying to dress as near as I can without falling in.  It's worth interrogating what it is about goth I find cool, and what it is I find embarrassing.  Goth is a look which is all about details, proportions, lines, with colour taken out of the equation entirely.  For that reason, it's a good place to start a journey into fashion.  And because of that, there's something adolescent and unsophisticated about it, as well as retro in the mortifying way that anything from your early high school years can be.  What I think of goth as being is all about D-rings, but what I want it to be is distressed Victoriana. 

Daria
Sometimes, you just need to look like you're Not Trying.  You can't do the big shop in all your finery.  That's when Daria is my fashion icon.  I hardly need to say, but the look is prescription glasses, longish skirts, sturdy low boots, and sensible outerwear. 

Kabuki
This would be David Mack's Kabuki, the complex pre-Alias tale of a cyberpunk agent's psychological journey.  I used to be a Japanophile, but now Japan and I are just good friends.  Similarly, I used to regard cyberpunk as a dystopian future, rather than the dystopian present and/or a dystopian retro 80s style.  Still, there's a goodly amount of this retro-future-present in my day-to-day style: think Black Milk. Shiny tights, sinuous cyber seams, Japanese influences.

Elf
My elf aesthetic is all about practical gear for the forest, made from the forest.  Legolas or Link.  Pixie hoodies, ragged-edge jersey skirts, pocket belts.

Snake

Snake?

SNAAAAAAKE!
Like Naked Snake and The Boss, I'm about having a camo index of 98% while still sporting military and Red Commie influences. 

Wonder Woman pin-up
This one has very little to do with the rest, but it's been relevant to my life since I moved to Scotland and am trying to live here as an American.  When I'm out and around, I want to be a cheerful, helpful, 1940s American in a smart uniform handing out Marshall Plan candy bars, not Ugly American Neoliberalist.  Coincidentally (perhaps) Wonder Woman is the MAC theme this spring.  There's an absolute wealth of 1940s retro style about, you're probably familiar enough with it.

I feel like I'm honing in on what I like and why, as a result of this exercise. There's a militaristic/anti-militaristic thread, a sort of natural or environmental theme, and the idea of death and decay.  Also anything with a nipped waist.

As my friend whom I’ll call Sam says, “I’ve dated women with everything from an A-cup to a D"

Every day or so I spend on the internet, I come across one of the five to six hundred iterations of this article, on what women can stop doing to attract men.  It's always written from the perspective of someone whose sole claim to authority on the subject is that they are a guy, which mystifies me: can there really be women who have no male friends or acquaintances that would bloviate rapturously on what they believe would most please a man?  In any case, all these articles boil down to a variation on the sentiment, "It's important that you be well-groomed, but I want you to stop spending time on grooming so that we can have more time to do things I like, such as touching a boob."  There is some kind of disconnect in these men's brains between cause (grooming) and effect (groomed) that probably also makes them Libertarians. 

Anyway, if men would like to take my big-ass gametes as qualification to tell them what all women think, and if they would like to stop doing something which completely fails to impress me, they could stop pretending to give a shit about sports.  I know, some women may claim to enjoy sports or like the company of men who do, but because they disagree with me, they're unrepresentative.  I suspicion that all the women who say they like sports don't really but are just pretending in order to attract men.  I am myself constitutionally incapable of enjoying sports and generally distrust the motives of anyone who does, but that shouldn't affect how totally right I am about this. 

Men, I think, only profess to like sports because if they don't other men will relentlessly hound them with accusations of homosexuality.  In men, I judge liking a thing which is inherently unlikeable to impress men to be understandable, and pitiable in a sympathetic way.  In women, I judge liking that unlikeable thing to impress men to be a contemptible betrayal of one's authentic self.  This double standard is my stake in the ground, now let's pretend it's the Daily Show and go to the part of the tape where I contradict myself utterly. 

So, video games.  I am strongly attracted to video games because for the past twenty years they've had the exciting, disreputable sheen of The Next New Media, with regularly-scheduled moral panics providing a rebellious charge to liking them.  And, if I'm honest, because the boys I always liked always like gaming--the weird boys, the boys with the D&D books and the graph paper and anime porn.  Though they could stop with the anime porn, frankly.

Now, I am fucking shit at video games.  I have terrible reaction time and I am emotionally devastated if I can't beat a level on the third or fourth try.  I can't play against people because I get upset if they win too much and worried about what they think of me if I win too much, and if I have any difficulty at all I'll be fighting the urge to wander off and never finish. 

It's clear to me that games, even more than films or books (but maybe not as much as music), serve as mile markers in the lives of the people who love them, bound up in memories of where and who they were when they played Metal Gear Solid or Bioshock or Chuckie Egg.  Nostalgia is such a powerful force in the industry because gaming is so experiential: when you play something that touches you, you're really stitching it into your life in the strongest way possible without actually parachuting into the jungle and fighting Russians while feeding on tree frogs.  And my favorite thing is to hear people articulating their memories, to know what they love and why it animates them.  But ideally without reference to the infield fly rule.

I got arms that long to hold you

Where I'm going I'm pretty sure I'll still need eyes to see, but--sadly? I don't know--I doubt I'll need a lot of the other body parts I collected over the years. A number of the more portable ones are already packed away, but those pictured here must remain in my room or, in the case of the torso, be stealthily abandoned in a distant public area after dark.

I decorated these when I was younger and worse and had fewer
Sharpies, so, you know, sorry you had to look at them.

Glass head appears courtesy of Pier 1.

Barbie leg at left for scale.

A keychain and...not sure why that has a safety pin. Punk rock!

Some human hair.

My closet.

Okay, so why do I have these? I'm more into skulls these days, but I think it had to do with wanting to seem dangerous, yet clever and sexy, like a serial killer. I never felt like other people regarded middle-class pacifists as sufficiently dangerous for my taste. But I also surmise that my motivations had something to do with the suggestion in Killing Us Softly that women are often depicted as disembodied parts rather than full people.

I saw Killing Us Softly 3: Son of Softly once in a college sociology class, and once in a college feminism class, and once before that in a context I don't remember.  It begins with Jean Kilbourne relating how she, a simple young woman working in the advertising department of a medical journal, happened to invent the idea of "taking ads seriously" in the 1970s when she started pinning sexist ads up on a big board in her home and then asking her friends to assist her in rendering a critical reading.  I can't really fault her for promoting a DIY approach to forming a personal philosophy, but I can't help but be irritated by anyone advancing the intuitive, anecdotal I-just-know approach to scholarship that is her stock and trade.  Anyway, she goes on to claim that violence against women is "widespread and increasing", which would have been quite a bold thing to say in 1999 since it would have so drastically contradicted so many reports and studies discussing the dropping crime rates at the time.  I imagine it's just a consequence of not updating your slideshow that often. 

Kilbourne argues, over clips of leggy women voguing as cameras follow them at a low angle, that "over and over again, just one part of the body is used to sell products, which is of course the most dehumanizing thing you can do to someone. Not only is she a thing, but just one part of that thing is focused on." Leaving aside a whole bunch of begging the question there, to what extent is this true, and to what extent does it matter? I guess after giving the whole thing around ten years' thought, I'll go with a) to some degree and b) somewhat. Close-up framing is basically an inevitability in image creation since, oh, ever, but at the very least since Birth of a Nation. And the way advertising works--the constant, increasingly sophisticated attempts to create, shape, and respond to consumer demands while always showing them something memorable--any part of the body that's fair game to show is going to be continually refigured and repurposed to make it new. That would probably be well and good if making a display of the perfected aspects of women's bodies weren't of such special interest to this society at the same historical moment when we seem to have reached the maximum tolerable level of equality and autonomy for the distaff and have started trying to shout back the tide.

But to what extent does this sort of compartmentalization and objectification affect women's self-conception, thereby insidiously undermining efforts at equality? When asking a question like this--essentially "is this a cultural construction or are women just like that?"--it's useful to be able to look to men. Sure enough, men are reported to experience great distress when the value of their bodies is abstracted to the dimensions of a single appendage. That level of distress, however, doesn't seem to have greatly affected their overall performance as a gender. It really seems to have more to do with, you know, choice and opportunity and all that, than whether they're humiliated in advertisements.  Because boy, are they ever.

The control of images and words is overly weighted as a tool for equality, I think, because words and pictures are fun to blether about. Controlling them seems quite easy compared to enacting policies to lessen the gulf between rich and poor, which would probably do the most good for everyone involved. But it isn't easy. Words and pictures are always going to break out of restrictions, because that's just the way people do. And I daresay, if political energy is indeed a finite resource (who knows, right? But I bet I wouldn't be so interested in the study of images if it weren't for Kilbourne) that it could be better spent studying to organize than studying to adbust. I understand, however, that my opinion may lose some of its authority when you see that I bought human hair.

Lain will be accompanying me to grad school if I can just
figure out a way to remove her head.

Catahoula cat

Oh, you had ridiculous taste in clothes when you were in high school?  Hey--fuck you, buddy.  This is what I was wearing back in ninety-aught-nine: 

I guess I can explain, sort of.  First, I'm not a furry.  I bought these ears with this girl I liked around Halloween, and then we just wore them, to school, every day for months and months after that.  She had longer hair and wore the pink leopard ears, which I thought were somewhat prettier and would have liked for myself.  To this day I have very little trust in my own taste when it comes to accessories. 

Inexplicably, it was around this time that other people first started allowing as how they wouldn't mind spending time with me.  Go figure. 

But I'm Not Bitter Or Anything

The day after Columbine, which hit geographically close enough to home that lessons were canceled for the day in favor of having everyone sit in homeroom and watch the red-faced teacher publicly buttonhole the goth kids to ask them why they were being so weird and whether they had plans to blow us all up, an unusual thing happened to me.  It was at lunch, in the cafeteria, where because I had transferred to the school in the third of the three years one spends at middle school, and because I had zero social skills or charisma and was so unfashionable that dogs bark at me as I halt by them, I usually sat in a far corner with two Jehovah's Witnesses, Kevin, a sad roly-poly bullying victim I could never politely get rid of, and Erica, a girl who would alternately hit me and try to touch me up.  It was this day, sitting there, when one of the popular girls approached the table. 

I've seen Mean Girls and I'm still not quite sure I have a handle on what "popular" means.  It doesn't seem to mean that many people like you; I guess it's meant to have something to do with occupying a coveted spot in the hierarchy.  There were some girls I liked and wished I was their friend and considered popular, though whether they were or not I will never know.  There was Michelle, who was chubby and had cropped dyed-black hair but wore lots of eyeliner and jewelry and had an amazing singing voice.  She was supposedly "easy" but then as now that designation didn't make a lot of sense to me and simply served to lend her a mystique.  And there was Jennifer, who was a plain-faced sport billy and student council member who was unfailingly nice to everyone.  This was neither of those girls, but some other person who, because I've never committed her name to memory, I'll call Claire Bennet. 

I had a class with Claire, in which she mostly distinguished herself with a sneering air towards the idea of knowing anything, and a Palinesque smugness when presenting her class projects that I assume came from how secure she was in the knowledge that nothing she did academically would affect the real parts of her life.  She was also quite mean to both teachers and students.  To my knowledge, before she approached my table, I had never personally interacted with her and had no indication that she was aware of my existence.  I was basically aware of our different positions in the hierarchy, hers being "popular" and the most common appellation I'd heard for myself being "dirty", as in "why would you want to hang out with the dirty kids".  So when she approached me I already disliked her and doubted her intentions. 

It transpired that, following the massacre, Claire was having some kind of crisis of conscience that was prompting her to try and stop the next school shooting by reaching out to the down-and-outs and inviting them over to her table and presumably at some point re-enacting the makeover scene from films.  It had clearly not occurred to her that I would consider spending time in her company as anything but a longed-for privilege, and she reacted with a sudden shower of invective, cursing me and my sort, when I gave her the kind of brush-off she would have given Kevin if he'd asked her out.  She flounced off back to her table, and while I'd like to think she took with her the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to be her, it was probably more along the lines of confirmation that the unpopular deserve every bit of it. 

This is all to say that the scene in The Breakfast Club where Molly Ringwald calmly tells Anthony Michael Hall that the reason he would not diss her to his friends is that "you look up to us" and Hall responds by laughing, crying, and telling her "You're so conceited" seems to be erring a bit on the side of saying that the popular kids are comfortable and settled in their self-images, while it's the nerds who are insecure and over-emotional.  I suppose if Hall had maintained an autistic affectlessness while Ringwald called him diseased and told him she hoped he'd shoot himself in the face with that flare gun, the ending where the outcasts are starting to become just a little more popular wouldn't have seemed like a happy one.

Look At This Fucking Haul

These are my men's jeans. I bought them in a department store which doesn't need or deserve the publicity. This store is bi-level, with the men's, children's, and housewares sections on the lower floor, and the women's department on the upper floor. In order to avoid using the men's dressing rooms and potentially seeing a penis, I grabbed a few sizes I thought might fit and ascended the escalators to the section of my gender.

A familiar frisson accompanied this action, the same as I felt after using the men's room at the theatre once. (It was an emergency more than a whim: my film was in progress but another well-attended movie had just let out. Both men's and women's restrooms were packed to the gills, but constant maddening experience has demonstrated to me that the men's line moves faster due to anatomy and a desire not to be thought gay. I waited, staring firmly ahead, in a line of men and children, suspecting that each saw me and resented my ability to invade their space without consequence. It smelled terrible.) After assuring a reasonable fit in the ladies' dressing room (though, like all jeans, these gapped at the back), I brought my purchase to a pretty young clerk. As she rang me up with a retail smile, I envisioned her being blown away by my poker-faced daring, and later telling her friends of her envy and admiration for my style. (I probably shouldn't admit this, as it appears conceited beyond belief; in my defense, I am aware it is a fantasy. This is not what I believe actually occurred.)

I rarely buy men's clothes since I went femme, so this purchase was tinged with nostalgia for teenage dykehood. The feelings of danger in crossing a gender line, I find, vary considerably with the circumstances. The two-level design of the store here forced me to cross the border very publicly, but many stores separate men's and women's sections by inches. I've never been accosted, asked to leave, or treated with hostility while browsing for men's clothes, but I suspect the same would not be true if I were male-appearing and looking at skirts. I feel it can be advantageous to roleplay that, perhaps, you are shopping for a gift for a father, brother, or boyfriend. Or just adopt the same demeanor you'd cop if you wanted to shoplift: you belong and your actions are normal and blameless.

I think women should have the experience of shopping for and wearing men's clothing, not because it is transgressive, but because I think women should understand firsthand what it is like to wear something which has been designed primarily to fit and be comfortable on a broad range of bodies. How it looks is something of a tertiary concern for men's clothing, following well after function and comfort. By the same token, I think men should experience buying and wearing women's clothing, due to my deep-seated hatred of men.


These are my jeggings. Jeggings are a recent point of contention in the fashion police state due to their availability to people who have enough body fat to continue menstruating. They combine two previous fashion trends that were giving people the vapors: skinny jeans and leggings. Numerous rules have sprouted up to mediate the wearing of jeggings. We are instructed that to properly wear jeggings, we must avoid being old, "curvy", thick in the thighs, or habitual wearers of panties.

Basically, the rule is that flaws--those aspects of your body that differ from a purely hypothetical and subjective female ideal--must be concealed for the sake of public decency.  Remember, if you're female, the visible parts of your body belong to a sort of civic trust, and as such are subject to continuous urban renewal and beautification efforts.  The process of disguising the unacceptable reality of your horrible body in a decorative way is known as "flattering", from a term meaning an insincere compliment delivered with an ulterior motive.

Skinny jeans, leggings, and jeggings are unflattering because they fail to conceal the shape of the leg, belly, and buttocks (the most awful parts of the woman, after her terrible genitals), forcing people to view the shape of female bodies which are wider or differently proportioned to the ideal. I plan to wear them with boots. Incidentally, the price of jean-colored spandex sewn into the shape of some leggings is slightly greater than the price of men's jeans. Both are about $15 cheaper than inexpensive women's jeans.

So as you can see, I'm a fashion fucking rebel. But already, inadvertently, I negated any transgressiveness of either of these articles of clothing when I bought them in a chain store, with money, and then took them home and put them on my young white pretty body.  Whether I or anyone else wants it that way, that'll always be a fashion "do".

Oh good, another blog

Reading lipstickeater and threadbared on consumerism and femininity (recently synonymous) has got me thinking about the development of my own gender expression.

As a child I was never able to put conformity before comfort--when my long rusty hair got painfully tangled at the base of my skull, I cut it off.* Dresses were too scratchy, and besides, my feminist, atheist folks didn't want to burden me with unnecessary gender coding. It was purple or teal slacks and Calvin-style striped shirts all the way.

Then before I was really prepared for it, puberty arrived and my comfort eating began to pack on the pounds. My jeans size went up--8, 10, 12 for a long time, then relaxed fit 12, finally 14--and I bought a ton of men's XL t-shirts with superhero logos.

Through some cultural osmosis or other, I came to the conclusion that girls who cared about the way they dressed and wore their hair were stupid, and since my greatest fear was of looking stupid, I'd stick completely to jeans, jean shorts, and a single, floor-length denim skirt. I'd play with lipstick and blush when no one could see, but without access to women's magazines (soooo stupid) I had no idea how to proceed. So.

Around about the end of middle school, I began also wanting my clothes to express a burgeoning queer identity, albeit not one my parents would be able to decipher. Overlarge Doc Martens with rainbow laces--who could possibly ferret out my genius code? I would ask for my hair as short as the Great Clips drone would willingly cut it, but I could never buck up the nerve to ask outright for the stranger touching my head to give me a man's haircut. Even though that would have been cheaper.

It became important that my clothing was labeled for men, which felt so appropriately transgressive to buy and wear. This would have been the late 90s, post Spiceworld, so I also owned a couple baby tees and spaghetti straps--that was my cover, you see. I dressed for comfort, and to express my contempt for the idea of dressing for anything else. I wanted out of my body.

Second year of high school I started getting really into dyeing my hair. Since it had dulled from new-penny to old-penny during the hated puberty, I had been lobbying my mother to help me go as red as drugstore brands would allow. She would instead steer me to some extremely subtle auburns, probably out of lessons learned from her own youthful hair experiments. These hair colors did fuck-all.

It wasn't until I began colluding with my pixieish friend Aviv to watch anime and become bisexuals that I broke out the 30-vol bleach and did what I assured my folks would be only a tiny blue stripe in my bangs. The way it made me feel was addictive. I wanted to look at myself and I wanted other people to look at me and be shocked and impressed. This is how punks must have felt back when they actually existed.

From an allusional Miki cosplay to a full green head for school photos, I tried on every color, eventually settling down to a good-sized chunk of the spectrum between orange and purple. I tried to avoid stepping on the toes of any of my group of friends who suddenly all had the same close crop and orange or pink hair, but Manic Panic makes a limited range, after all.

Coloring my hair was a huge relief as a largely degendered outlet for my desire to decorate my person. Makeup would have been a minefield--there were too many girls wearing it well, who would know when I wore it poorly. Becoming a goth was always tempting, but too expensive and too likely to draw unwanted parental attention. Though it dyed my collars, pillows, and walls, my hair situated me within my female peer group while letting me stay androgynous.

I kept it up for a bit early in college, but dyeing in a room you clean yourself quickly became a drag. As far as I can intuit, this is the college experience in fashion: the elaborate looks you've created to code yourself to your high school chums erode rapidly, followed by all decorum and grooming. You'd just roll out of bed and put on whatever was closest to hand and easiest to pull over your head. That's right--those collegiate fuckers were completely biting my high-school look. This could not stand, because if everyone looked like me, no one would comprehend instantly how blindingly superior I was.

I started drawing up plans for my all-new style. It would be based on the tuxedo, all crisp white blouses with black jackets, skirts, and trousers. Basically, I decided that the ideal look would be "waiter". To that end, I started to haunt thrift stores. I started to pay attention.

The other thing that happened was, I started to lose weight. Mainly this was from living on microwave popcorn rather than food, but seeing that it was possible for me to lose weight lit a fire in me. I dieted and exercised religiously, skirting the edge of an eating disorder. I was constantly hungry, angry, paranoid and antisocial, I had a mini nervous breakdown and quit college for a while, and I dropped from 180 lbs to 120. Overall, a classic female success story!

My wardrobe, by contrast, expanded rapidly. A frenemy had opined that I was "unfeminine" and therefore unattractive, and because by this time I was desperate to attract anyone's company, I took it as a challenge. Dresses, skirts, and frilly tops began to attract my coin. I had decided that I would still be queer, but now I would be a femme queer. My logic was, and still occasionally is, that the feminine is degraded and disregarded in a misogynist society, and that I would work on redeeming feminine dress and practices (while reaping the benefits of being viewed as socially compliant).

I wasn't alone, either. All kinds of young women were turning from the androgynous styles of the 90s to "new Romantic" or "retro" or any of a dozen other ways to say a highly femininzed, desperately sexualized fashion turn towards a safe imaginary past. My passage into the feminine had been well-greased by strong cultural forces with an interest in getting me to fit in.

Moving from a socially unacceptable body and dress style to a socially acceptable one did get me positive attention. From guys. In fact, a number (3) of guys stepped up to tell me that they had even liked my socially unacceptable body, but had been wary of asking out an obvious lesbian. The threat to my queer identity boys posed was outweighed by a genuine attraction to men and an o'erpowering desire to fuck someone who was not also a virgin (sorry erstwhile roommate!). I dated a bit, then fell in love with the man of my dreams and, well, put the queer identity on a shelf so as not to be called a bisexual poseur.

Still and all, I hadn't counted on the fact that a decade of studiously ignoring fashion and, well, grooming would leave me without the necessary skills and aesthetic sense to dress myself in the mornings. I wore a bunch of bad shit. Well, they don't call it trial and success, eh?

Despite looking at girls for years, I had no idea how to suddenly become one. The girls of my acquaintance, too, wore jeans and t-shirts, but with a hundred subtle touches that resulted in feminine presentation. But, look, fuck subtlety. If I was going to learn anything about girl drag, I was going to have to try too hard. Instead of looking at the women around me, I looked to caricatures: the sex-nuts Victorians and the 1950s pin-up housewife. An hourglass exaggerated by a full skirt and a cinched waist: that was my jumping-off point into femninity. It felt like a masquerade, a costume you wear until it inhabits you, similar to the enchanted (and sexy!) costumes in Buffy the Vampire Slayer's second-season Halloween episode, "Halloween."

In any case, it's been a few years since then and I'm generally happy with my dress sense and makeup skills, though I still have a ways to go with hair. I'm ambivalent about what my newfound love of adornment means for me. When I began to pour my creative energy (what little energy I possess) into looking pretty, I lost much of my drive in art and writing, which I always thought would redeem me being bad-looking. My ambition to do what I consider valuable has plateaued while I work on this new outlet, which is ephemeral, dubiously rewarding, and arguably unfeminist. I read any kind of cultural studies I can lay hands on to try and understand my fascination with and compulsion to create myself anew on the site of my body. So this is my attempt to make a style blog which is against the idea of style blogs, to become an anti-fashion guru, to create criticism, to redereconstruct. My secondary goal is to not be needlessly cruel to anyone while doing this, so if you see me being, say, racist, please let me know.


*Random bolding strategies in this post owe everything to Slog.