I'm not entirely sure how this came up in a conversation between my mom and myself last night, but something brought this subject to our attention. I think it may have had something to do with Marie Antoinette and this book I found in the library years ago but can't remember the title of. Maybe it was something period on television. Either way, I've got no idea, but the bottom line was this: humans are basically birds in reverse.
Before you look at me like I'm entirely warped in the head (don't worry, I know that already!) hear me out on something. Human fashion, for as long as we've had visual records of human fashion, has been far more decorative and elaborate on women, from everything I've found. If you find something to the contrary, please send it to me because I'd love to see it! I did a little digging and everything I found supported the birds-in-reverse theory. I started Googling formalwear for men and women around the world. I tried to find traditional where I could.
Japan, for men - exact Google search "formal kimono for men":
I have to say, for the sake of full disclosure, I am by no means an expert on fashion of any kind. I don't know what the nuances of the colors mean or anything else. I know that the little white stamps on the back are called "mon" and I believe they bear family crests. If anybody can correct me on that, please do so.
Japan, for women - exact Google search "furisode":
I do know enough about kimono to know that the formal kimono for an unmarried woman is called a furisode. I don't know if this one is specifically for the coming-of-age ceremony at 20 years of age, but please notice the differences. The man's kimono is in very subdued, neutral colors, just like most female birds. The woman's furisode is brilliantly colored and the sleeves look almost like wings. They're almost like a male and female cardinal with their color schemes done in reverse!
Korea, for men and women - exact Google search "Korean mens formal attire traditional":
I can't be entirely sure, but from the episode of M*A*S*H I've seen that featured a traditional Korean wedding, I think this may be wedding hanbok. At first, I thought "hanbok" was just the word for Korean women's clothing, but it looks like it might just be the word for clothing! In this case, yes, the man is wearing red too, but his outfit is nowhere near as jewel-toned or elaborate as the lady's.
This is a picture from the movie of the musical 1776. The costuming is pretty accurate to the period. Notice a pattern here?
I'm no sociologist or psychologist or fashion-ologist or any other kind of "-ologist" you can think of. I'm just a feminist on the internet who happens to notice things every once in a while. There's a million and one implications that can be made out of this pattern, I think. I think some implications are definitely feminist, and I think some are definitely patriarchal. However, in my world, feminism means that everyone has the right to choose what fashion means to them.
The only "-ologist" I come anywhere close to being is a zoologist. I can say, from a zoological viewpoint, that I have never seen a species that treats one gender or the other the way humans treat women. Hyenas are EXTREMELY matriarchal, but you generally don't see packs of female hyenas setting upon and killing a male hyena because they didn't like the look of him. Gorillas are led by a silverback male, but females who do not want to participate in sex have been known to swat oncoming males with sticks while hooting at them in a threatening manner. Bonobos use sex to say "hi" - no joke. No species I've ever heard of so systematically enacts violence and death against its own kind. It doesn't make any kind of species-survival sense to do that.
Just... from what you see here - the "birds-in-reverse" dynamic, what are your thoughts? I'm really interested to hear them. Also, where did we get this whole "stomp women into the ground" mentality that has swept our entire world? I'm quite sure that a great deal of it happens to have to do with colonialism, but I'm nowhere near caffeinated enough to do a whole spiel on that right this second.
Marigold, wishing you a wonderful Wednesday, over and out!
Before you look at me like I'm entirely warped in the head (don't worry, I know that already!) hear me out on something. Human fashion, for as long as we've had visual records of human fashion, has been far more decorative and elaborate on women, from everything I've found. If you find something to the contrary, please send it to me because I'd love to see it! I did a little digging and everything I found supported the birds-in-reverse theory. I started Googling formalwear for men and women around the world. I tried to find traditional where I could.
Japan, for men - exact Google search "formal kimono for men":
Japan, for women - exact Google search "furisode":
Korea, for men and women - exact Google search "Korean mens formal attire traditional":
This is a picture from the movie of the musical 1776. The costuming is pretty accurate to the period. Notice a pattern here?
I'm no sociologist or psychologist or fashion-ologist or any other kind of "-ologist" you can think of. I'm just a feminist on the internet who happens to notice things every once in a while. There's a million and one implications that can be made out of this pattern, I think. I think some implications are definitely feminist, and I think some are definitely patriarchal. However, in my world, feminism means that everyone has the right to choose what fashion means to them.
The only "-ologist" I come anywhere close to being is a zoologist. I can say, from a zoological viewpoint, that I have never seen a species that treats one gender or the other the way humans treat women. Hyenas are EXTREMELY matriarchal, but you generally don't see packs of female hyenas setting upon and killing a male hyena because they didn't like the look of him. Gorillas are led by a silverback male, but females who do not want to participate in sex have been known to swat oncoming males with sticks while hooting at them in a threatening manner. Bonobos use sex to say "hi" - no joke. No species I've ever heard of so systematically enacts violence and death against its own kind. It doesn't make any kind of species-survival sense to do that.
Just... from what you see here - the "birds-in-reverse" dynamic, what are your thoughts? I'm really interested to hear them. Also, where did we get this whole "stomp women into the ground" mentality that has swept our entire world? I'm quite sure that a great deal of it happens to have to do with colonialism, but I'm nowhere near caffeinated enough to do a whole spiel on that right this second.
Marigold, wishing you a wonderful Wednesday, over and out!
No comments:
Post a Comment