Egads.
Junior Ryan Haecker of the University Of Texas At Austin wrote a commentary for the Daily Texan. He believes "dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world," and...
What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.
In advocating the wearing of dresses, I must distinguish between the flowing elegant dresses of tradition and the more degenerate and immodest dresses of our present culture. The miniskirt, a dress of sorts that doesn't extend below the knees, is both lacking in modesty and elegance. Elegance is essential to femininity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of masculinization. Modesty is essential to feminine virtue, and the lack thereof implies a state of whorification. Immodest, inelegant dresses constitute a degeneration and androgynization of true dresses.
The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. In discarding feminine dress, women seem to have symbolically discarded femininity and modesty (the virtues of women) in favor of sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men). The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture.
My biggest gasp was at his concluding line:
Dresses are an essential part of any true lady's attire, and they should be worn.
What? No obligatory reference of Deuteronomy 22:5? I'm disappointed. ;) Unbeliveable that someone would hold this viewpoint in this day and age, but more than that -- I'm amazed he expressed this thought in such a public forum.
Well, I still wear pants. And trust me when I say I've been called a man and "Mr. Sandeen" by the likes of Americans For Truth Against Homosexuality -- but even they didn't call me masculine. Being a female -- being a woman -- is a heck of a lot more about what's between the ears than on the garb we wear as females.
For San Diego's TDoR tonight I'm going to wear a simple, dark gray, jumper style dress over a black feminine tee. The skirt on my jumper will be long enough to cover the top of my black, nearly knee high boots -- all in all, some very modest attire.
I'm sooooo glad I have a chance satisfy Mr. Haecker's idea of feminity by what I'm wearing tonight -- of course, I probably wouldn't satisfy his definition of female, but one out of two ain't bad, right? ;)
~~~~~
Feel free to rail away at the backwardness of Mr. Haecker's thoughts on female clothing, but please remember today is a day the transgender community, their friends, families, and their allies are memorializing those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. Tooday, we in the LGBT community don't need to hear objections to Mr. Haecker's viewpoints expressed with hateful words. |