I have been coming up with much less imaginative titles lately, and for that please duly accept my perfunctory apology.
I just read an article about a pair of Wal-Mart panties that parents and feminists are up in arms about. It’s not often middle-america and the feminists choose to be on the same team, but they are today.
For people too lazy to click a link (I know I am), the panties are really cute and pink and polka-dotted and have text on the front saying ”Who needs credit cards?” The back of the panties say, “When you have Santa Claus.”
Now everyone, start screaming about how society is teaching your young female children to sell themselves.
Am I the only person who doesn’t find those panties offensive? The front is meant to be misleading as a means of achieving humor when you flip to the back and see that we’re referring to Santa, not prostitution. Okay, it’s stupid. But it’s supposed to be funny, and I think any sane person would look at it that way.
I think I’d be among the first people to say that I think encouraging overtly sexual behavior or attitudes among adolescents or children is unnecessary and disturbing. But there’s a line. I don’t have a problem with a six year old in a two-piece bathing suit. I do have a problem with a six-year old wearing a pair of sweatpants that says “juicy” or something on the butt. There is nothing overtly sexual about a kid in a bathing suit, no matter how much skin is exposed. But a kid with “juicy” on their butt is encouraging us to view them by their physical features. Or their parents are encouraging us to do so.
I guess I think of these panties in the same vein as “juicy.” An adolescent girl wearing them is no big deal to me. It’s not like everyone can see them, so it’s less overt than the “juicy” sweatpants.
But what really grinds my gears is that this is a tiny symptom of a bigger problem. There was an article linked to on Fark the other day about how American women spend thousands of dollars in the upkeep of their physical appearance but British women do not (author was criticizing British women). I don’t spend anywhere near thousands of dollars. Throw in a some razor blades, a few haircuts and eyebrow waxings, maybe some make-up and call it a year for me.
As a society, we encourage, we implore women to spend thousands on their appearance in this country. Thousands on make-up, on spa days, on plastic surgery, on pedicures and manicures and haircuts and waxing.
There is nothing wrong with looking and feeling put together and I don’t ever mean to imply that there is. Your clothes should fit nicely, you should care about personal grooming – it can improve your confidence and the way other people view you. But thousands of dollars? After spending that kind of money, you have to be a prostitute to make some of it back. Wal-mart is just helping to groom our girls for the role our society has already decided they should play. Can you fault them for that? I’m not sure I can.
I get that tackling the larger issue of women being judged almost entirely based on their appearance is a daunting task. I just don’t think Wal-mart’s panties contribute all that much to the issue at hand. Look around pissed off about your place long enough and anything can be offensive. That doesn’t change the way things are.
Whoopty-do, Wal-Mart stopped stocking the undies. Feminist movement/American family values FTW. Nope, not at all. You have to choose your battles and understand that mainstream society/news will only support you on the smallest, least-complicated non-issues. Like a pair of Wal-Mart undies.
K.
The contents of this blog entry yaddayadda Webmaster of Doom, Michael yaddayadda.
Post a Comment