"Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X"

Please read the following in the voice of a British documentary narrator. My personal favorite is Tony Jay, but you feel free to pick your own:

Greetings, followers, and welcome to a special installment of Magical Girl Power's "Field Guide to Misogyny." In this segment, we will explore the first of three prominent players in the field of misogyny, with a focus on body policing, hetero-normalcy, and invalidation. First, we have the ever-present "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." In the second place, we have the all-too-common "You Can't-er." Finally, we shall finish this series of "Field Guide to Misogyny" with the annoyingly self-superior "One-Upper."

Moving straight forward, we come first to the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." An insidious creature, no one has ever seen this particular man, but apparently every woman is made painfully aware of him. Every time a woman is told that she should change her outfit because "boys will get the wrong idea" or informed that "men" hate a certain item of clothing, we are exposed to the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." His opinion is meant to control every aspect of life as a woman. When a woman is told that she should dress to impress, she is being told that the one she must impress is the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." What he thinks of every possible stitch of clothing on her body or particle of makeup on her face is of utmost importance.

This creature is particularly slimy and harmful due in first part to its obvious use in total cis-het male domination of women, and in second part to its complete falsification of the minds of real men. Both of these aspects work together to harm people of any and all genders. By policing women's bodies in pursuit of ultimate appeal to the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X", we perpetuate hetero-normalcy on all sides. Let us face the facts - not everyone is straight. The range of orientations out there is truly dazzling. Only ONE orientation has anything at all to do with the desires of a cisgender, heterosexual male, and that is cisgender heterosexuality. If you are a cisgender, heterosexual woman, by definition, you are attracted to men. It doesn't even necessitate being attracted to CISGENDER men, as far as I am aware.

So how has the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X" become so phenomenally ingrained into every aspect of our world as we know it?

1. His opinion is the yardstick by which every woman is expected to live her life.
2. The preferences and desires of actual men are over-shouted by his ever-present influnce.
1. Example: I cannot think of a single man I've ever met who even HAD an opinion on hi-lo hems. I asked my friend Elf what he thought of them and he said, and I quote, "hooziwhatzits?"
3. Men who fail to live up to the standard of "Theoretical Random Cis-Het Male X" are demonized, because this creature is the ideal of our society. Deviate from that, and you will be punished.
    

What does one do when faced with the presence of this draining force of a mythical creature - this parasitic unicorn, as it were? How do we, as feminists, remove the importance of his opinions to ourselves and to others around us? 

One suggestion is the same as with bullies on an elementary school playground - ignore the pest and, when it ceases to obtain the reaction it desires, it folds up and disappears. Of course, this suggestion is laughable in all practicality. Nothing has ever been solved with ignoring the problem. However, a change in reaction is beyond doubt a necessity. It is a frightening prospect for many, such a drastic deviation from the norm. Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if everyone woke up tomorrow and entirely ceased to base their lives around the presence of our subject?

It would be 1929 for the advertising industry. Instead of scurrying to buy this, that, and the other thing out of fear and shame, people would buy what they like and what makes them feel good. Of course, it would not be the end of the fashion and beauty industries in entirety, but it would certainly change their place in societal context. Imagine a world in which people brushed their teeth because it is the hygienic thing to do, not under the influence of how "If you're not whitening, you're yellowing." Is it really so radical to think that having less than Chiclet-bright teeth is a sin so heinous that you will spend the rest of your life a tired old hag without a "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X" to sweep you off your feet and fix your life?

That is the presence of our subject: the fact that toothpaste companies can sell you a product based on your worth to him, instead of the product's benefit to your overall health.

We at Magical Girl Power suggest awareness as a combatant to our subject. When one is aware of a problem, when a problem is spoken openly of, then the problem can be solved. Talk to your friends about the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." Post about him online. Spread this article around. This is your first step.

Your second step involves NOT being on the computer. The second step is the hard one. Have a sit-down talk with yourself and be brutally honest. Not about your flaws, not about what you hate about your body, nothing negative. Have a talk with yourself about what makes you feel awesome. Talk it out loud, write it down, lay things out - put things in front of you that make you smile and think "Dude, this is great!" You are allowed to have pretty dresses. You are allowed to have a pair of perfectly holey jean shorts. You are allowed to have makeup, or Spice Girls CDs, or leggings, or a pair of your brother's cargo pants. Whatever makes YOU feel wonderful, surround yourself with those things. Feel comfortable with those things - tell yourself all the reasons these things make YOU feel amazing. Remind yourself, often and verbally, that YOUR wants and desires and taste matters.

Beware - you may hear the irritable, buzzing voice of the "Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X." It may come in the form of a Cosmo cover, or a rerun of Joan Rivers body-snarking some female celebrity, or even a well-meaning relative. Stuff in your figurative headphones - or your literal ones, if you find that helps. Block out the presence of our subject by reminding yourself of everything that makes you feel amazing. Anything that seeks to invalidate your wants, desires, and taste is to be rubbed out during this step.

Step three is the hardest of all - act upon step two. Choose an outfit - ANY outfit - and wear it in complete defiance of our subject. Tell everyone around you, LOUDLY, that this is what you are doing. Encourage them to do it too. Whatever you are doing or wearing or saying, do it confidently from your own place in the universe. Reject the opinion of our subject, even if you have to say out loud at the top of your voice, "NO, Theoretical Random White Cis-Het Male X - I do not give a shit about what you think I should do or be." The more we practice saying that and doing that, the less power our subject has.

This has been the first installment of Magical Girl Power's "Field Guide to Misogyny." We hope you'll tune in next time for the "You Can't-er." For now, practice your rejection of today's subject.

Marigold, wishing you a happy Monday, over and out!

Just an observation - sort of like birdwatching!!!

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!