Dress codes and Female objectification

DRESS CODES AND FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION Chhavi Priya Gaur “Cut the toe off, when thou art queen, thou wilt no more need to go on foot” i demanded Cinderella’s step mother while asking her eldest daughter to cut off her toe in order to fit in the glass slipper. The quote indicates the lack of use for the foot (or the body) decreases her value to that of a showcased doll, simultaneously telling the price that women must readily pay for acceptance thus establishing a link between discomfort and beauty. The Red Carpet phenomenon where women prepare themselves and their bodies to look glamorous for this night in order to be placed in the category of the best dressed celebrity, is not dissimilar to the glamorous ballroom events that were de rigeur in the 17th and 18th centuries. James Laver, a clothes historian theorized that clothing both expresses and is shaped by three fundamental principles: the hierarchical principle, the attraction or seduction principle, and the utility principle. The seduction principle plays the most significant role in fashion change, particularly as it affects women's clothes. He deemed the seduction principle is the most important because "our clothes are dictated by the fundamental desires of the opposite sex… Men still choose their mates by their physical allure; that is why women's clothes follow what might be called the Attraction Principle; they are designed to make their wearers as physically attractive as possible" (1950). The attention given to the physical appearance can be attributed to patriarchal views on gender roles wherein the woman’s value was seen in her physical beauty and the ability to bear children. These views continue to influence the way in which specific body types and modes of dress are viewed. This article explores the cause and effect of selected dress codes imposed on women that have increased their subjugation.

Modesty and the Woman’s Body The female breast has shifting identity - as mammary organs for children, or as a sexual object for the male gaze and therefore subject to moral policing. History shows that laws were made to objectify the breast by linking it with morality (or modesty) by the half of the population that happens to ironically not have any (breasts). Bernard Rudolfsky (1971) writes: “modesty appears to be a virtue as absolute and indivisible as honesty…..our very language is ambiguous; it does not convey the exact meaning of modestia (modesty)…..The Latin modestia stands for composure, unpretentiousness, and moderation in desires and passion…..It is shame that we are forever confusing with modesty. Shame; noted the Jesuit writer de la Vassiere; does not express the real connotations of the Latin Term pudor because it is an equivocal word and may designate to good or bad shame. Whichever way we look at it, modesty, or what we take it for, is complex. Put together of any number of illfitting parts, it reveals itself in more or less irrational taboos that differ not only with every civilization but often within a civilization itself. Like most taboos, they defy logic. Moreover, they are highly unstable; a principle rigidly upheld today, tomorrow is abandoned and forgotten.”

Tracing the history of the breast through the lens of Rudolfsky’s text, we look at a complex norms across civilizations and periods. In the Indian subcontinent prior to the British Raj, the breast was not considered to be a sexual object and therefore it was common for women to go out with uncovered breasts without being questioned about her modesty. With the entry of foreign powers and invaders, from Alexander to the British, accusations of immodesty of the bare breast required women to cover themselves, which ironically resulted in drawing attention to the breast, as human instinct is to be attracted to that which is hidden. The breast which earlier was not objectified as being sexual, became exactly so. Following the

1

example of British women wearing blouses, Indian women too started to cover themselves with the blouse.

This underscores the aspect of enforced showcasing of breasts (in contrast to covering them) in Kerala around 19th century. A mula karam or breast tax was imposed on women in order to be permitted to cover their breast. This was ironical during the time when covering the breast was condemned as an act of disrespect by the upper class. This brought about a situation where a dress code was enforced not based on sexual appeal, but on socioeconomic disparity. Nangeli, an almost forgotten historical figure still finds mention in folklore as a woman who defiantly covered her breast despite hailing from a lower caste.

Unable to pay the breast tax, she cut off her breast with a sickle and presented it to the men who came to collect mula karam.

Thirteen Inch Circumference and a Generation of Disfigurement The waist is at the epicentre of the body as t determines through visual estimate, how full the breasts and hips are. The smaller the waist, more defined is the difference between the three anatomy parts, and therefore more the attractive the person appears to be. Smaller waists were considered to be the symbol of youth among civilizations that gave birth to waist training. This is evidenced by the diktat by Queen Catherine de Medici in 16 th century that the waist which should be small enough to be encircled by both hands, which is approximately 13 inches. The ban on thick waists from her court forced women to constantly wear corsets to emphasize the waistline, to attempt to shrink it down in proportion to the ribcage and hips.

The corset was also used as a medium to make profit which is probably why health practitioners made no attempt to stop the practice of waist training. This could be attributed to the fact that earlier the subjects for medical study on women wore corsets since their childhood leading to an internal change in the natural size and shape of their organs.

Corsets changed the female anatomy as much as in her psyche making women fragile unable to stand without the corset supporting their spine; breathless; leading her to faint at the very mention of something that might increase the breathing and caused miscarriages as well.

Dilemma of the Foot The story of Cinderella holds cultural significance of small feet. Curiously among some cultures, the size of the foot is considered to be proportional to the genitals of both men and women, creating a misconception that men with bigger feet have bigger penis and similarly, women with smaller feet have smaller vagina, in turn referring to her being ‘tight’ and thus virginal. Small feel of girls also resemble infant’s feet creating the illusion of childlike innocence.

The practice of female foot-binding in 13 th century China encased in specially shaped “lotus shoes” In addition to altering the shape of the foot, the practice also produced a particular sort of gait that relied on the thigh and buttock muscles for support. From the start, footbinding was imbued with erotic overtones. A small foot in China, no different from a tiny waist in Victorian England, represented the height of female refinement. For families with marriageable daughters, foot size translated into its own form of currency and a means of achieving upward mobility. The most desirable bride possessed a three-inch foot, known as a “golden lotus.” It was respectable to have four-inch feet—a silver lotus—but feet five inches or longer were dismissed as iron lotuses. The marriage prospects for such a girl were 2

dim.

Every civilization and generation has had its own different absurd take on human anatomy at different periods of time. An example is the 19 th century obsession with ankle supports when people believed that human body would snap and fall if ankles were not supported and thus wore laced tight boots till the calf. Another example is the widespread belief that symmetry is beauty and thus the natural lopsided foot is ugly and unacceptable. Bernard Rudofsky writes, “Despite or because of the absence of feet that live up to their commercial ideals of anatomy, they doggedly go on producing symmetrical shoes. And although their customer’s feet have not changed in the course of time, they spare no effort to come up every season with a new symmetrical shoe for the same old foot”. These absurdities are still followed as crippling beauty cannot be achieved painlessly.

Under the veil Veiling is another practice with different reasons attributed to it. It was practiced in ancient Greece based on socio- economic status, in religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam based on modesty, and in south Asian countries based on protection from onlookers gaze.

In ancient Greece, it was ruled that any woman belonging to the lower class (peasant, servant of prostitute) shall not be allowed to cover her head with a veil whereas it is mandatory for the rest of the female population to keep their dignity (and veil) intact. The punishment would include disembodiment, lashes, or public humiliation in form of complete nudity depending on the nature and intensity of the crime. The veil differentiates between women who were considered modest and those available for public.

European states have moved over the years to outlaw Muslim headwear in public including burqa bans, headscarves and veils. In 2010, Belgium voted to implement the first European ban against wearing the burqa and niqab in public. In 2011 France became the first European country to impose a ban on full-face veils in public areas. In 2016 German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that in German culture, she said, it was not appropriate for women to completely cover their faces and that the wearing of full-faced veils should be prohibited in the country "wherever it is legally possible". This has been opposed by Muslim women claiming that it takes away their choice to decide whether to dress according to a particular standard of modesty, and prevents anonymity in situations where it might be socially or personally desirable.

The Hatpin At the turn of the 20th century, American women were wearing 12 inch long hatpins to keep large hats on big hairstyles. Their initial foray into socializing on their own and walking the sidewalks unchaperoned led them to encounter street harassment. In self-defence, women jabbed the hatpin into the perpetrators arm which led to hatpins becoming the defence of unescorted women and therefore a symbol of female empowerment. By 1910, Chicago and other cities had passed laws limiting the length of hatpins.

“It is worth noting that in much of the discourse the threat posed by hatpins it is most commonly discussed only in relation to the dangers to men. While it’s possible that the use of the term ‘men’ is intended to represent the all-encompassing ‘mankind’, the gendering of language is remarkably consistent across much of the public discourse – hatpins were a danger posed by women towards men, and occasionally children, but never to other women.

The language denotes an underlying anxiety about the possibility of ‘armed’ women in their midst – capable of causing purposeful injury.”

-Anna Temby, a tutor of the University of Queensland 3

Who wears the pants Women wearing pants is only newly socially acceptable in a society that has been largely controlled by the patriarchy. According to some scholars, the discrimination and prejudice connected to wearing pants is related to bifurcated garments being a symbol of masculinity which is subject to scrutiny when women start wearing them. Joan of Arc famously crossdressed, wearing men’s armour in the 15 th century as a deterrent to rape and was eventually burned at the stake in part because of this. By 1850, Amelia Bloomer, a women’s rights activist, popularized the ‘Bloomer’ pant – the baggy, knee- or ankle-length trousers created

by Elizabeth Smith Miller. As celebrities, both of those women could get away with wearing androgynous looks without repercussions, while ordinary women elsewhere would have been fined, thanks to laws enacted by men. In France, women needed permission to “dress like a man” to work or ride bicycles or horses, a law that remained intact until 2013. In 1939, a Los Angeles woman went to jail for wearing slacks to court, the judge citing them as a distraction from the ongoing legal business at hand. Women in the United States Congress were barred from wearing pants on the Senate floor until the 1993 “Pantsuit Rebellion” overturned the archaic rule. By the 20th century, women’s pants were appropriate for “occasional dressing only” worn at designated times as hostess pajamas or bicycling pants. By the 1920s and 30s, celebrities like Marlene Dietrich dared to wear full pantsuits courtesy Gabrielle Chanel to movie premieres. For spring 1964, André Courrèges showed women in trousers and flat boots encouraging the look for everyday instead of occasional dressing. Yves Saint Laurent is perhaps the most notable figure when it comes to liberating women from the confines of a dress when he presented the “Le Smoking’ as a signature ensemble in 1966. Off the runway, retailer Ann Taylor is launching its “Pants Are Power” campaign on March 1, which, the company says, “commemorates the evolution of pants not only in fashion, but as a symbol of equality for women.

In 2009, a Sudanese woman was fined (but avoided whipping) for wearing green slacks which violated “public decency laws”; a rule adopted in 2017 for women pro golfers stipulated they could be fined for wearing leggings. Some leggings are considered anti-pants pants and therefore as oppressive as corsets and gowns, according to opinion writer Honor Jones of New York Times, whose ‘Yoga pants are bad for women’ has raised controversy.

Evidence of gender based discrimination is seen in the 1919 imprisonment of Puerto Rican writer activist Luisa Capetillo for wearing pants; the 1998 decision of the Supreme court of Italy that imprisoned a 45 year old rapist for assaulting an 18 year old girl but let him walk free based on the argument that wearing jeans signified immodesty of the victim and therefore the sexual act could not have been anything but consensual.

CONCLUSION Historically, women’s clothing has been prescribed and monitored by dress codes often formulated by men indicating that the policing the clothing and body of women is also political. While dress codes may seem benign, the extra policing that women often experience when it comes to their clothes signals at the fact that it is not only about controlling the person’s looks, but also how society sees the person. This identity dissonance continues to be evidenced in gendered differences in the women’s wardrobe and thereby, their professional identities.

REFERENCES Costello, Carrie Yang (2004), Changing Clothes: Gender Inequality and Professional Socialization, The Johns Hopkins University Press, NWSA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 pp. 138-155 Rudofsky, Bernard (1971), The Unfashionable Human Body, Doubleday & Co., Inc., NY

4

https://www.falconers-voice.com/2015/06/dress-codes-promote-gender-inequality/ https://www.bustle.com/p/what-not-to-wear-the-strange-scary-history-of-womens-dresscodes-41519

5

i