A comment by Canadian former prime minister Kim Campbell earlier this week has had lots of women up in, er, arms. Campbell twote:
These aren't the wisest words ever committed to cyberspace. Surveys show that the public holds newsreaders in (bizarrely?) high esteem, regardless of gender or sleevage. And it goes without saying that women on tv, as in any other profession or walk of life, ought to be able to wear what they like, within certain parameters. But what are those parameters? Whose interests do or should they serve?
Note that what Cambpell finds demeaning is the contrast between news-presenting women's attire and news-presenting men's. Placed side by side, the sleeveless woman appears more bodily, more exposed than the suited man. (She is very often also the younger, junior, lower-earning partner.) Does this affect our perception of their credibility and gravitas?
Campbell, on a roll, tried to justify her tweet, citing an academic paper which suggested that we, the public, really do think differently of people according to how much of their skin we can see. The paper's findings are a bit – no, a lot more complex than she made out. Rather than belittling or objectifying people who flash some flesh, we tend to feminise them (a fraction more so, in fact, when they are men); that is, we attribute to them less agency and rationality, but more scope for warmth and feeling (and, by extension, vulnerability). Since the main selling point of news presenters seems to be that they should be likeable and relatable, it's hard to argue that sleevelessness is doing them a disservice here.
In any case, as Campbell ought to have realised, the Sleeve Wars are one of those no-win scenarios for women in the workplace. If they're not underdressed, they're overdressed; long sleeves make them dull and invisible, but show a bit of arm and bang goes their credibility. Despite this, plenty of women do seem to get it right, whatever it may be in any given work environment, and at whatever cost in terms of the time and money they spend/blow on self-presentation. Which leads me to an uncomfortable question: what if Campbell is right? What if it can be proven that baring arms, legs, shoulders really does hold women back? Is it worth pursuing the right to be eternally cold, eternally anxious that your armpit hair is growing more quickly than you anticipated, in the knowledge that you are sabotaging your own career, just to say fuck you to patriarchy?
The way out of the dilemma is obvious. What is demeaning about bare skin in the newsroom and the office – for we are not talking about building sites or gyms here – is its association with femininity. Women bare; women are less; therefore baring is less. Now, we could try to persuade the public/men to get over their preconceptions and prejudices about femininity and all that Venus/Mars silliness, but I'm globally speaking pessimistic. Alternatively, we could get men to dress more like women. I don't mean dresses and bras. I mean sleeveless shirts, lower-cut tops, open shoes, cardigans with mid-length sleeves, maybe even painted nails and lip gloss. Go on, fellas, what's stopping you? [Not a rhetorical question.]
In proposing this I am joining a long, albeit marginal tradition. The struggle against boring, restrictive, gender-specific men's clothing was a part of the 19th century reform movement. In the UK it was driven by silk-stockinged reverends and high-minded bicyclists. It culminated in the establishment of the Men's Dress Reform Party (whose leaders are pictured below) – motto: “Better and Brighter Clothes!” – an eccentric interwar offshoot of the eugenicist movement concerned that the dull and sexless appearance of middle-class men was depressing the birth rate. French reformers were drawn from more bohemian circles: aristocrats (real and phoney) nostalgic for the days of perfume and powder; dandies and libertines eager to renounce the Great Renunciation; agile young men no longer able to hide the light of their gorgeousness under a bushel of flannel and tweed. Then came James Dean and the Sixties and glam rock and Boy George and little football shorts. And now here we are, with wee Alfie dressed as Spiderman and wee Emma (it's always a fucking Emma) as Princess Anna, and men still covered all the way from the neck down reading the news alongside women not.
What struck me while reading about the dress reform chaps (apart from the eugenics) is how sincerely they admired the feminists who had campaigned for greater sartorial freedoms, and – a rarity – how openly they envied the women that now benefited from them. Yet these were not freedoms that most men have ever seemed to want for themselves – which makes me suspect they might not really be freedoms, or ones worth having, at all.
Perhaps men are wrong. We are in an age where self-presentation takes on more and more value. Young middle-class women – better educated, health-conscious, immaculately groomed, 'in touch' with their sexuality, and more than likely sleeveless – are the “ideal neoliberal subjects”. Each seems to have her own individual style (the fruit of much thought, experimentation and selfie analysis) yet many are also able to meet the narrow criteria for Getting It Right in any given environment. Who needs gravitas when you are already kickass?
Perhaps men's workwear genuinely is oppressive, as the dress reformers believed. Oppressive not in a Breitbarty, male tears kind of way, but in a self-limiting, counterproductive way, a bit like unlearning how to show emotions. Perhaps all those shades of brown and blue, the boring shoes and the sweaty collars, the suits and ties and shapeless aggrandising body-devouring smartcasualness that once marked you out as a real company man are holding you back now that the company is all about creativity and passion and innovation (and outsourcing its staff). Unicorns don't shop at Moss Bros.
Perhaps a presenter ready to forgo some of his own credibility and gravitas by baring the same amount of skin as the woman working alongside him is a presenter who doesn't later drop his trousers, waggle his dick at her, and reprimand her for not wanting to suck it.
Or perhaps Kim Campbell is confusing a consequence of the double standard with a cause. If it isn't armflesh, won't it be make-up or jewellery or higher-pitched voices? There's always something.
Anyway, instead of going down that road, let me open this up. What do you folks wear to work? How much time and effort do you spend on presentation? What are the sartorial parameters (written and unwritten) in your workplaces, past or present? Do they feel constrictive? How would you dress if you could? Any really smart or stylish dressers you've worked with? Any eccentrics who try to bend the rules? Does anyone Get It Wrong? Do you think your presentation has affected the way you are perceived at work? Have you ever felt judged? Who (else) gets judged? What would it take for you to find someone else's presentation decredibilising or demeaning?
And do you really want gravitas from your news presenters?
I am struck by how many women on television news wear sleeveless dresses- often when sitting with suited men. I have always felt it was demeaning to the women and this [here she references another tweet] suggests that I am right. Bare arms undermine credibility and gravitas!
Note that what Cambpell finds demeaning is the contrast between news-presenting women's attire and news-presenting men's. Placed side by side, the sleeveless woman appears more bodily, more exposed than the suited man. (She is very often also the younger, junior, lower-earning partner.) Does this affect our perception of their credibility and gravitas?
Campbell, on a roll, tried to justify her tweet, citing an academic paper which suggested that we, the public, really do think differently of people according to how much of their skin we can see. The paper's findings are a bit – no, a lot more complex than she made out. Rather than belittling or objectifying people who flash some flesh, we tend to feminise them (a fraction more so, in fact, when they are men); that is, we attribute to them less agency and rationality, but more scope for warmth and feeling (and, by extension, vulnerability). Since the main selling point of news presenters seems to be that they should be likeable and relatable, it's hard to argue that sleevelessness is doing them a disservice here.
In any case, as Campbell ought to have realised, the Sleeve Wars are one of those no-win scenarios for women in the workplace. If they're not underdressed, they're overdressed; long sleeves make them dull and invisible, but show a bit of arm and bang goes their credibility. Despite this, plenty of women do seem to get it right, whatever it may be in any given work environment, and at whatever cost in terms of the time and money they spend/blow on self-presentation. Which leads me to an uncomfortable question: what if Campbell is right? What if it can be proven that baring arms, legs, shoulders really does hold women back? Is it worth pursuing the right to be eternally cold, eternally anxious that your armpit hair is growing more quickly than you anticipated, in the knowledge that you are sabotaging your own career, just to say fuck you to patriarchy?
The way out of the dilemma is obvious. What is demeaning about bare skin in the newsroom and the office – for we are not talking about building sites or gyms here – is its association with femininity. Women bare; women are less; therefore baring is less. Now, we could try to persuade the public/men to get over their preconceptions and prejudices about femininity and all that Venus/Mars silliness, but I'm globally speaking pessimistic. Alternatively, we could get men to dress more like women. I don't mean dresses and bras. I mean sleeveless shirts, lower-cut tops, open shoes, cardigans with mid-length sleeves, maybe even painted nails and lip gloss. Go on, fellas, what's stopping you? [Not a rhetorical question.]
In proposing this I am joining a long, albeit marginal tradition. The struggle against boring, restrictive, gender-specific men's clothing was a part of the 19th century reform movement. In the UK it was driven by silk-stockinged reverends and high-minded bicyclists. It culminated in the establishment of the Men's Dress Reform Party (whose leaders are pictured below) – motto: “Better and Brighter Clothes!” – an eccentric interwar offshoot of the eugenicist movement concerned that the dull and sexless appearance of middle-class men was depressing the birth rate. French reformers were drawn from more bohemian circles: aristocrats (real and phoney) nostalgic for the days of perfume and powder; dandies and libertines eager to renounce the Great Renunciation; agile young men no longer able to hide the light of their gorgeousness under a bushel of flannel and tweed. Then came James Dean and the Sixties and glam rock and Boy George and little football shorts. And now here we are, with wee Alfie dressed as Spiderman and wee Emma (it's always a fucking Emma) as Princess Anna, and men still covered all the way from the neck down reading the news alongside women not.
What struck me while reading about the dress reform chaps (apart from the eugenics) is how sincerely they admired the feminists who had campaigned for greater sartorial freedoms, and – a rarity – how openly they envied the women that now benefited from them. Yet these were not freedoms that most men have ever seemed to want for themselves – which makes me suspect they might not really be freedoms, or ones worth having, at all.
Perhaps men are wrong. We are in an age where self-presentation takes on more and more value. Young middle-class women – better educated, health-conscious, immaculately groomed, 'in touch' with their sexuality, and more than likely sleeveless – are the “ideal neoliberal subjects”. Each seems to have her own individual style (the fruit of much thought, experimentation and selfie analysis) yet many are also able to meet the narrow criteria for Getting It Right in any given environment. Who needs gravitas when you are already kickass?
Perhaps men's workwear genuinely is oppressive, as the dress reformers believed. Oppressive not in a Breitbarty, male tears kind of way, but in a self-limiting, counterproductive way, a bit like unlearning how to show emotions. Perhaps all those shades of brown and blue, the boring shoes and the sweaty collars, the suits and ties and shapeless aggrandising body-devouring smartcasualness that once marked you out as a real company man are holding you back now that the company is all about creativity and passion and innovation (and outsourcing its staff). Unicorns don't shop at Moss Bros.
Perhaps a presenter ready to forgo some of his own credibility and gravitas by baring the same amount of skin as the woman working alongside him is a presenter who doesn't later drop his trousers, waggle his dick at her, and reprimand her for not wanting to suck it.
Or perhaps Kim Campbell is confusing a consequence of the double standard with a cause. If it isn't armflesh, won't it be make-up or jewellery or higher-pitched voices? There's always something.
Anyway, instead of going down that road, let me open this up. What do you folks wear to work? How much time and effort do you spend on presentation? What are the sartorial parameters (written and unwritten) in your workplaces, past or present? Do they feel constrictive? How would you dress if you could? Any really smart or stylish dressers you've worked with? Any eccentrics who try to bend the rules? Does anyone Get It Wrong? Do you think your presentation has affected the way you are perceived at work? Have you ever felt judged? Who (else) gets judged? What would it take for you to find someone else's presentation decredibilising or demeaning?
And do you really want gravitas from your news presenters?
Comment