I'm not and never have been very clued in to fashion. Somehow I missed the memo that I shouldn't wear "mom jeans". This clip from SNL is from years ago, but I just saw it recently:
Well. I'm a professional (software engineer), I have my master's degree, I drive a spiffy car, I have a nice singing voice, I enjoy good sci-fi, and I can be very witty to the point of making people laugh that deep belly laugh you don't hear so often.
But I guess none of that really matters, because when someone sees me, they'll think I'm some kind of pathetic... MOM. Frumpy. "Let myself go". Don't take the time or effort to make myself look nice.
Honestly, IF it wasn't hard to find a pair of jeans that fit comfortably and still please the "fashionably correct", I would probably not be wearing "mom jeans" right now. But I hate shopping, I refuse to wear something awkward and uncomfortable, and I feel like I have much better ways to spend my time and energy than pleasing people who will probably just move on to complaining about my "muffin top". Cuz yeah, I have a "mom" body. While I'm not particularly fat (my BMI puts me in the range of "normal") giving birth to two children has left my body with 15 extra pounds and looking like a MOM (with a lower belly that sticks out and sags).
And what of it? Is it so horrible that I'm no longer "sexee"? Even worse, I don't feel deep shame about it? Unfortunately, I do feel the disrespect, nay, the contempt people have for mothers in the concept of "mom jeans". In the SNL skit, the "moms" were saying "I'm a MOTHER, not a WOMAN" (or something like that). So they weren't women because they weren't trying hard enough to be sexy? If you're "devoting your life to kids" too much, you're not "devoting your life to men" enough. (Oh, the heresy of devoting your life to neither!)
This whole thing is what I think of as an "abstract corset" that women are forced to wear. I'd like to say I don't really care what people think, but of course I do. It's not going to make me go out and start dieting immediately. But it'll make me feel bad and sort-of inferior for a while. In the future, I'll probably be tempted to purchase jeans that are not as comfortable &/or spend more precious time looking, &/or spend more money than I really want. And then still not feel good about them.
Most mothers do not look like Angelina Jolie after they give birth. They look like the women in the SNL skit. What is so appalling/disturbing about the way a typical mother's body looks? Is it the sense that her body is "used"? Is it a fear of dying that makes us fear the fat that builds in a natural way on women's bodies during as they age? Is it a fear of the way society limits mothers so severely? I wonder sometimes if teen girls don't try to distance themselves so dramatically from their mothers because they want to be escape the constrictions they see on all mothers. "Somehow, if we don't look like them, or carry the same purses, or drive the same cars, or wear our hair the same way, we won't be trapped in that trap." Without even a full consciousness of it, there is a part of them that is keenly aware of these limitations. New moms who are all about losing the "baby weight" are really, symbollically, trying to regain their freedom and status.
I am pretty conscious of the conformity expected of me as a mother, and constantly chafe against it. It means that I never really quite fit in with other moms. Ironically, looking too much like a mom (without feeling bad enough about it) means I'm not acting like a "proper" mom.
Argh.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Mom Jeans.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12224
While I agree with you that moms are given such a hard time for not having the perfect body, I think this is just hilarious.
They aren't laughing at bad bodies (from what I recall -- I'm in Canada, so I can't watch Hulu), but the style. The point of that style is that it looks terrible on eve skinny people like actresses on SNL.
I'm all about deconstructing, but this is one of my fave SNL skits of all time. I think what might be different about this for me is that moms are making fun of these jeans. I know plenty of moms who mock that "19 inch zipper". Moms aren't delegated to wear those pants, some just happen to wear them.
They're absurd pants. Do you laugh at 80s fashion? Sure. Why not laugh about this?
Agreed. Its kind of like if I saw someone wearing tights and a scrunchie - I would laugh, because it looks ridiculous! I wouldn't be laughing at their bodies just their goofy clothes.
pan is right, the mom jeans are not flattering at all. The pocket placement makes your butt look twice as wide!
There's plenty of flattering styles in between the two extremes of super-duper-lowrise and my-pants-reach-up-to-my-armpits. You could take a 30 minute shopping trip to Old Navy and pick up some midrise jeans. :)
I think the rest of your post brings up some awesome points, your love of those unfortunate pants aside. That point you brought up about teen girls trying to be the complete opposite of their mothers could be a post all on its own, I think. I know that I'm scared of ending up like my mum when I'm her age.
I feel the same way, that it's more goofing on some styles that are just unflattering. Even if I was a mom, I wouldn't want those clothes they show! If anything, I think the slogan at the end "You're not a woman anymore, you're a MOM!" is sort of a jab at the Madonna/Whore complex that society still seems to have--that once a woman becomes a mother she's supposed to be this sort of asexual being who only lives for (and through) her children. They also say something about how it's "perfect to wear anywhere from the PTA to the soccer game", as if the only places the Mom will ever go now are child related--no adult social time with her partner or perhaps other adult friends in the neighborhood. Sometimes you can make an indictment of something through humor.
It's ironic that in the time since the skit was taped, high-rise jeans have become quite stylish.
Questioning:
Well, the stylish high-rise jeans are not cut remotely like the stereotypical "mom jean." They are also designed for a somewhat, well, skinnier demographic. I think that fashion-y sorts would turn up their noses at a woman larger than a size 2 wearing them (see: Jessica Simpson debacle).
But pff. Those are on their way out, too (precisely because, I'd guess, they are unflattering according to our current standards of beauty for anyone with an ounce of belly).
But at any rate...
Sleepybones:
I agree with that mothers are expected to BOTH be child-focused and man-focused. One isn't good enough and neither is just cause for contempt. I'm not sure the SNL "mom jeans" skit, taken as a whole, is playing into that dynamic. For the most part, it's like any other comedy segment about ill-fitting fashion trends-- I've seen similar skits about crocs, ponchos, scrunchies, and acid-wash denim.
The scene that I do see as problematic is the "night on the town" part, where the husband looks at his wife in thinly veiled disgust when she comes out the door. That does explicitly link the concept of "dressing fashionably" with that of "dressing for men."
I struggle with this kind of subject, because my feelings about it are unresolved. I like fashion. I like wearing clothes that are stylish and conventionally sexy. I wear make-up, jewelry, and contact lenses. And, I'm not going to lie, I do it partially to be pleasing to my partner (as well as other men and women).
But what's the other option? The comfort argument doesn't particularly resonate with me-- if you buy clothes that fit, stylish or no, they are comfy. I could also dress in a purposefully "frumpy" way. But I don't think that the clothing I wear will determine whether or not I'm objectified-- just whether that objectification deems me acceptable or not.
I'm not convinced that fashion, as a concept, is wrong. Since time immemorial, some body decorations have been in vogue. That's not to justify the invisibility of those who don't dress up to modern, impossible standards, of course. But I'm not so sure that any judgment based on a person's appearance is inherently objectifying, even if it involves that person's sexuality.
Perhaps one's physical appearance can ever be divorced, even in a non-patriarchal society, from certain social and sexual messages. My instinct, which I acknowledge of course is shaped largely by my social context, is that even if someone is cognizant and respectful of another person's humanity, he will "read" her physical appearance for coded messages. The code might change, but fundamentally, clothing conveys an idea of a person's social status, sexuality, power, etc.
This is bad when people use these messages to determine the intrinsic worth of a person. But I don't necessarily think it's inherently objectifying to be sexually attracted to one kind of dress and not to another, even if that desire is dictated by society.
Yes, no, maybe?
I have never found jeans that fit comfortably that aren't "mom" jeans. The one(!) pair I do have might not be quite as bad as the ones in the video, but I'm not so bad at fashion that I don't make the connection. Does this mean that I'm not spending enough time looking? How much time is "enough" & what if I don't have numerous hours I wish to spend on this task? If I go ahead and spend the time, who exactly am I trying to please?
It's not that I care so much about looking sexy to random men (I don't), but I don't like to be put in the category of just a mom/kind-of pathetic.
I can avoid ponchos, crocs, acid-wash, etc. pretty easily. But again, I've found that avoiding mom jeans pretty much means avoiding jeans altogether.
this is quite baffling...where in the world would one get "mom jeans"? I had no idea that you could actually buy these pants...
maybe it isn't the style, but that people are trying to squeeze into too tight of a size?
I agree. I couldn't find a horrible pair of jeans if I tried. I guess I'm shopping at the wrong stores!
I think everyone has a misrepresentation of what's actually out there. I watch What Not to Wear religiously, and most of the women on that show are of average size, size 12-14, 5'5", etc. I don't fit that at all. I can go from a size 0 to a size 4, depending on the store, and I'm almost 5'2". Yet most of these women say "All I can find are size 0-2." And I'm screaming at the TV, "Send me to that store, because I can never find my size!" Shopping is a discouraging experience for women (and men, even though it appears to be easier for them). We fixate on what we can't find. But I see it as a success if I try on 20 items of clothing and buy the 4 that look great, because that means I just bought 4 great items that I can use in several outfits. I think too many people pick out 3 things that they "know" will be perfect on them, try them on, find out that they're too big or small, and storm out of the store in a huff.
Well they certainly don't make mom jeans in size 0, that's for sure. Try being a plus size and finding non-mom jeans. It's not that it's super difficult to find a plus sized clothing store, it's that the clothes are usually overpriced and unattractive.
Did I not just say that shopping is difficult for everyone? I don't know how that translates to a plus size pity party. It's no easier for me to find clothes that fit than it is for you. If it is, it only means that I take time to shop and try things on and don't get discouraged when something doesn't fit. It's an ordeal, but it's worth it because I find clothes that make me look and feel good.
It's not a "pity party", it's simply the truth that 80% of stores cater exclusively to sizes 0-14. Shopping sucks for everyone. You said "I couldn't find a horrible pair of jeans if I tried"...well guess what, other people can find them. No need to bite my head off.
This is a genuine question, just because I have always been sort of curious -- do you find that, most of the time, if you try on a piece of clothing that is "your size," it will actually fit you? I don't mean that it has to be flattering or cut to look right for your body type, I just mean that it will "fit" in that you can put it on yourself and it is not too big or too small in different places, that you could feel physically comfortable walking around in it. It's always seemed to me that this was at least much more often the case for my skinnier friends, whereas there is absolutely zero guarantee that something in a size 14 will fit me right at all (and it's not that it's just too big or too small, it's things like "well there's no room for boobs in this shirt but somehow it is way too big everywhere else" or "these jeans are way too big in this spot while also being too small in this other spot," etc etc). I'd say that something in "my size" will actually fit me maybe 10% of the time or so (that's on the generous side). It's this kind of thing that the curvier women of the world are always complaining about, even when we can find clothing in our size in "normal" stores -- the process of shopping and trying things on can be humiliating and disheartening and make you feel like a completely unattractive misshapen blob if you just happen to have an unlucky day and go through 25 different items of clothing that you liked on the rack but all of which end up representing different iterations of "Oh, I wish you looked like this, not like that..."
I think it depends, really. I'm generally a size 6 myself, which is obviously more common and more commonly fashionable than size 14 clothes, but I can't shop in the "women's" section for shirts unless I have some major tailoring done to the clothes because apparently all "women" have gigantic boobs (last I checked, I was barely an A). Pants are even worse; the ones in the juniors section are terrible if you want to actually cover your ass 100% of the time and generally aren't made for people with thicker thighs like I have, while the ones in the women's section are so high and go in so much at the waist that I usually can't wear them either.
Yet, those are just my complaints; there are a LOT of clothes that I do automatically fit into. So while I would agree that every woman has a hard time finding clothes that fit her well, I think those of us on the skinnier end of the spectrum have a much easier time of it - and get more fashionable clothes as well.
See, and I have the opposite problem. It seems like everything I want to wear is tailored for smaller-chested women, but that might be because I have a relatively "average" body with larger than average titties.
I think it's everyone that has difficultly finding clothes that fit.
It's not a pity part. There are simply more stores that sell your size than those who sell mine. Hence, a larger selection and a greater probability of finding a range of clothing that at least comes close to fitting you.
I say "comes close", because I do agree that few people, no matter how big or small, fit off-the-rack clothes perfectly. If I've learned anything from What Not to Wear, it's that 90% of people need some kind of alterations to the clothes they buy in stores if they want the clothes to fit perfectly. So of course both you and I have to try lots of clothes on to find something flattering and comfortable.
WNTW is pretty good in that it emphasizes that it's not our bodies that are wrong, it's that clothes are sized and shaped for one specific shape, and we all have different sizes and shapes. Stacy and Clinton often say something along the lines of, "You shouldn't get mad at yourself and hate your body because it doesn't fit your clothes. You need to take your clothes to the tailor and make them fit you," in response to women who bemoan their body size/shape.
The problem with relegating plus sizes to separate stores is that it's kind of like saying, "Your body is WRONG. Your body is so WRONG you can only shop here, and if you need alterations on top of that, your body is even more WRONG." So plus-size women get a heaping pile of that kind of bullshit on top of the usual trying-on process that everyone has to go through. So yes, I would say the subjective experience of shopping for larger size clothes feels worse. (Speaking as a person who has been both 103 lbs and 187 lbs at different points in my life; the small clothes didn't fit my shape any better than the big clothes did, but I didn't feel there were as many 'something is wrong with you' messages being sent my way when I was thin).
I wonder about this all the time, since most of the women who work in our department office wear mom-jeans all the time. Where do they find them? They don't seem to carry them where I shop.
Sleepy;
I also like very high waist pants. I think it's because the waist hits me where the skin on my post-baby body naturally bends, if that makes sense.
Anyways, I have had the best luck in the men's department. The pants are higher waist, the sizes are standardized, and the prices are much cheaper. They are the only jeans that feel comfortable to me.
Good luck!
I think my experiences with comfiness of clothing articles are definitely shaped by, well, my shape. For me, some relatively stylish jeans sometimes (although obviously not all the time) fit me.
But then I haven't had kids, I'm 20 years old, and I'm conventionally "thin." I don't list these attributes to imply in any way that they are better than any others, but to show that they do privilege me to fit into certain articles of clothing.
Sleepybones, I didn't mean to invalidate your experience of not having found comfy, fashionable jeans and I think I undervalued that in my post. The bottom line is: if they're not comfy, they don't fit. And for many people it seems that mom jeans are the only jeans that fit. While I know some people who have switched to stylish, comfy jeans from mom jeans, they only could do so through extensive searching. But it's by no means mandatory (or even positive) to invest the time and energy to search...
That is, actually, what my question really is... Is it a capitulation to patriarchy to search for stylish clothes? Does the very concept of "style" necessarily undermine the intrinsic value of people who can't or don't want to fit that style? Or is style more innocuous-- something loaded with messages about sexuality, interests, and position-- but not necessarily harmful IF the ways those messages arise are not unequal.
Obviously, style in the current clime regularly devalues large women, women of color, older women... the list goes on. But to what degree is that the fault of the concept of "style" in the first place, instead of the hegemony that causes us to use clothing as a measure of actual human worth (perceived human worth, in this system, being diminished by being large, nonwhite, older, or female)?
I don't think being stylish is important. The important thing is finding clothes that you feel good in, even if it is a bit of a search. What you wear on the outside can help you feel better about what is on the inside. Whether its an outfit that acts as a bit of a shield to let people's crap roll off you or shoes that make you walk a little taller a little prouder.
You don't have to be fashionable to have your own style. I like to put my own creativity and expression into everything in my life. I think about the foods I put into my body, the television and literature I put into my mind, the music I put into my car, why would I mindlessly wear whatever is closest to the door at the most convenient store? I prefer to walk out in something I feel confident about, because I considered my options and made the choice for myself.
I found an article about it here:
http://www.thatcoolbroad.com/2008/03/05/mom-jeansdont-even-think-about-it/
Here's an interesting quote:
"...side effects are usually moderate to severe and can include the dreaded camel’s toe, flattened ass, and erectile dysfunction (you won’t suffer this one, but the man in your life may)"
It goes on to say "... make sure you go shopping when you feel like trying on 3,000 pairs" and lists out an incredibly complicated set of criteria. Of course, it also mentions lots of exercise to "get that butt ready". This is the invisible corset.
"It goes on to say "... make sure you go shopping when you feel like trying on 3,000 pairs" and lists out an incredibly complicated set of criteria. Of course, it also mentions lots of exercise to "get that butt ready". This is the invisible corset."
mhmmmmmmm, call it like it is, sleepy. you sound like an awesome mom and woman (two events, not mutually exclusive).
She only shops for jeans when she is feeling hungry.
Patriarchy is still alive and well.
I have a big problem whenever someone says that what's on the inside can't possibly matter to anyone if you make a modicum of effort to make yourself look presentable. It's this all or nothing type of thinking -- I either care only about how I look or I only care about what's on the inside. The truth is, you can look stylish and have inner qualities! Did I just blow your minds?
People do judge others based on how they dress. It's impossible not to. We see everyone before we meet them. Our sense of sight is arguably our strongest and most important. That's not to say that everyone judges people ONLY based on how they dress, but how one dresses does make us think about that person overall. That also doesn't mean that our assumptions based on how others dress are true. My mother and I were looking at old pictures from when she was a kid. Her family was by no means rich, but they dressed really nice. She said, "We were poor, but we dressed like kings." People don't have to know that you're poor or tired or overworked just by looking at you. That's private. Why make that information public by literally wearing it all over your body? Do you want people to know that you put yourself last on your own priority list by wearing an oversized sweatshirt with spit-up all over it and a pair of tapered pleated white jeans that barely touch your Crocs? Instead, wear your creativity and confidence. Wear your intelligence and your love for your body. Wear something that makes people correctly assume your wonderful qualities.
I think wearing clothes that don't look good on you because you can't find anything that fits is very sad. There is absolutely no reason that anyone shouldn't look their best and feel good about how they look. There are comfortable clothes out there for women that feel and look great. I know. My closet is full of them. It is difficult for most women to find clothes right off the rack, whether you're short, tall, petite, or plus sized. You can make the clothes fit you by going to a tailor. Even if you have to try on a dozen pairs of jeans to find the one that fits you great in one part of your body, it's worth buying those jeans and having them altered so that you can have a custom garment built for you. If the clothes don't fit, it's not you, it's the clothes. There's no shame in going up or down a size.
I agree. There's nothing I hate more than meeting women who think they are ugly or unattractive when really they just have terrible style. It makes me sad that they have never felt good about the way they look, especially when I can tell that they have so potential. I think "What Not To Wear" has taught us that you can look good in clothes at almost any size, and that a good haircut can do wonders.
Also, I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with dressing like a frump if you really don't care. Bad clothing has never stopped me from being friends with anyone. But too often I have seen people who don't know how to dress nice hide behind the "I don't care" excuse, only to see them get very upset if they think someone is criticising their clothes. People just need to be honest with themselves.
As far as "mom jeans" go, I dislike them because they send the message that women have given up. I swear, you really do have to search to find mom jeans in 2009. And I can't possibly imagine that they are more comfortable than other jeans. I too hate shopping for jeans as a size 10--I just don't look good in them. But I've taken to wearing a lot of skirts and dresses that are cute and way more comfortable than jeans could ever be.
While I agree with you that people don't have to be "all or nothing" when it comes to fashion vs. personality and having a life I do take issue with your assumption that because somebody doesn't make an effort to look fashionable that they are not "making themselves a priority". All you can really tell from that person in the unattractive pants and big sweatshirt is that they are not making fashion/their appearance a priority. Some people truly do not care what they throw on and that doesn't mean they don't value themselves. Perhaps they would rather spend whatever time they devote to shopping, coordinating outfits, going to get clothes tailored and the energy and thought that goes into dressing fashionable on other things they value more. Perhaps they make themselves a priority by engaging in activities they enjoy. Myself, some days I like to dress nice and have fun doing it and other days I throw on whatever mismatched faded old outfit I can find that doesn't stink because I decided I would really rather spend that half hour reading a good book than doing laundry or I haven't been clothes shopping in a long while because I am saving my money for something I want more. On the days that I look my worst it is not a sign that I am valuing myself any less.
The thing is, it doesn't take that much thought or effort to look put together. With the same time it takes to put on a stained oversized sweatshirt and pair of tapered jeans, one can put on a sweater and trousers that fit. I almost always wear at least two layers on top to make myself look more put together and presentable. If it takes five seconds for me to put on one shirt, it takes me 10 seconds to put on two shirts. I can say with confidence that everyone can make time to take an extra few seconds to put on something that fits and looks good.
Like I said, everyone judges each other based on appearance first. Sometimes, we project the image of not caring about ourselves, even if that's not how we feel and not how we want others to think of us. But there are some people who dress poorly all the time, and they feel like they are not worth looking their best. They actually do put themselves last on their own priority list, if they even make the list at all. That should never happen.
I agree that if someone is only dressing badly simply because of low self-esteem and feeling like they aren't worth it, then they should make an effort to dress more stylishly and enlist help in doing that if that's what they need to feel happier. However, there truly are people out there who simply do not care for fashion and who are happy as clams just the way they are. Those people should not feel pressured to change just because society places a high value on looks. I would say that the majority of people not following trends (especially in the city) are of the former group, and that sucks, but I'm from the county where people don't judge as much based on clothing and I know so many people who are just doing their own thing, not worrying about what fashion magazines tell them to do. These people are not pathetic.
It is not that simple to look good. For various reasons, a lot of people don't know what looks best on their body and/or cannot find clothes that fit, even ones that can be tailored to fit.
You're also forgetting that a lot of people don't have the same fashion sense as you. Maybe a woman thinks she looks great in an (unstained) "oversized sweatshirt and pair of tapered jeans". Who are you to tell her that she doesn't if that's what she feels great in?
There's another point here - a sexism point.
Women are expected to spend a hell of a lot of time thinking about clothes, trying on clothes, getting clothes altered (and having to pay for it - men get alterations for free in most clothing stores) and the hours and hours and hours of in store or online shopping.
Women are also expected to spend a high proportion of their disposable income on clothes - much more than guys do.
Does society expect ANY of that from men?
Short answer - NO.
Men can get by with jeans and a t shirt, or slacks and a button down shirt, and either sneakers or dress shoes - with very few basic style variations.
Men aren't expected to spend hours shopping or to have dozens and dozens of outfits that they hardly ever wear hanging in their closets.
This is a great advantage for men - cheaper clothes, a lot less variety so men don't have to spend hours agonizing about what to wear today and in general a whole lot less clothing anxiety.
Women can also get by on a few style variations. I live in jeans and t-shirts. Women and men have the option of being very fashionable with accessories and expensive clothing, but it's perfectly easy to get by wearing nice clean-cut clothing with the pants/button-up combination.
There's "Dad" fashion, too, if we must create a binary. I'm pretty sure men have been teased for the socks with sandals decision. Socks and sandals just don't make sense to me, really. Sandals are for letting the feet free, but not too free as to step on rocks and nails. And socks are used for tennis shoes so the feet don't get sweaty and blistered.
I'm not denying there's a pressure of women to be fashionable, but saying that men are free from it is definitely not true. Men dress for women as well!
Evidently they make sense to the person who chose to wear them.
@AnUnfunnyFeminist:
Do you want people to know that you put yourself last on your own priority list by wearing an oversized sweatshirt with spit-up all over it and a pair of tapered pleated white jeans that barely touch your Crocs?
Why does it matter to you what some random stranger wears or looks like? I understand that you like fashion. That's fine. You have control over what you wear, how you fix your hair, etc. But why does it matter to you what someone else does? Just wondering why it would bother you enough to make a comment about it.
I'm someone who believes that what's on the outside reflects how you feel about yourself on the inside. Most people already do this without thinking much about it. But I also believe that what's on the outside should reflect the best parts of someone's personality and inner qualities. So when someone is dressed in a way that emphasizes the worst parts of their body and their lives, that makes me concerned for their well-being and how they view themselves. If someone wears jeans that make their butt look much bigger than it is, chances are, they believe that their butt really is that big and they can't do anything to make it look better.
It's not a shallow judgment. I have to report on the appearances of clients at my job, and it's a way to assess their mental status. In the case of children, it assesses their foster parents' ability to care for a child. I take into consideration a lot of things, like class. Some people might wear the same hoodie every week because it's the only one they have. Maybe it doesn't fit because it was the only one at the thrift store that sort of fits. But if a child shows up with torn tights or boots that can't zip up all the way and that cause pain when the child walks, that's a cause for concern. If a parent shows up in a see-through shirt and their house slippers, that has to be recorded.
I don't expect anyone to look like a super model. I certainly don't look like one. Almost no one looks like one. The point is, you don't have to look like a super model in order to feel like one. There's no point in looking horrible if you don't feel horrible, and there's no point in feeling horrible about your body when everyone is truly beautiful.
I'm 21 and I wear "mom jeans." Why? Because all those years of wearing hip-huggers has left me with a permanent dent in my hip fat and I want it to go away. I'm sick of having a "muffin top." If I wear mom jeans, my asscrack doesn't fall out of my pants every time I bend over even a little. And it flatters my figure better than hip huggers anyway.
I don't see anything wrong with them. I guess that's only my opinion, but if anyone tells me I should give up mobility and comfort in the lab just because I look bad, they can go fuck themselves.
I agree with entomology girl. Personally I follow fashion trends (as much as possible given that fashionable, affordable plus-sized clothes are impossibly hard to find), but if someone doesn't want to worry about clothing beyond comfort and cleanliness, then there's nothing wrong with that. To me it doesn't suggest that the person is "pathetic" or "giving up". It suggests they don't follow fashion. Who gives a shit? I don't follow popular music, does that make me pathetic? Sleepy, I think if you WANT to dress stylishly, then try splurging on a personal shopper to help you, or bring a fashionable friend you trust to tell you what looks good. If you feel better and more comfortable wearing "mom jeans" then do it and everyone else can shut the fuck up.
"There are comfortable clothes out there for women that feel and look great."
No there aren't -- not for all women, at least.
It happens maybe once in five years that the one store which carries clothing in my size actually carries black jeans that at least sort of fit me and are not covered in rhinestones or something equally stupid. Often, they don't carry any jeans at all (sometimes no pants at all) in my size (28W).
If -- and all of this applies to me -- you are sensitive to synthetic fabrics/embroidery, oppose drycleaning for health or economic reasons, are vegan and don't wear animal fabrics like silk/wool/leather, wear only modest clothing styles, can't afford expensive clothes, and/or wear plussizes or, especially, supersizes, you are SOL.
You just have to look harder than the average person to find clothes, just like 99% of women. Or you can get your clothes custom-made. In this case, you might have to put a price on your values.
What if she doesn't have the money to do that? Not everyone has class privilege.
Have you tried Lane Bryant or Cotton Ginny? (Do they have those stores in the U.S.?)
If I find a pair of jeans I like and they have some ridiculous rhinestone pattern on them I take them home and break out the wood chisel or putty knife and scrape them the fuck off. They're just held in place by adhesive, so they come right off.
Also, for people complaining about needing plus-size jeans because of height (most brands only go up to a 32 or 34 inch inseam for women), Lucky jeans and Victoria Secret both have long jeans with 36 inch inseams. I know, this seems like a ridiculous problem, but I'm not sure why clothing designers believe that the taller you are the bigger your waist is. They don't assume that about men, so why would they think this is true of women? That's my big problem with jeans...
Fashion is total craziness. I can sympathize with posters having trouble finding non-mom jeans that fit comfortably and with those that don't know they exist.
As a 24-yr old professional, I enjoy being a bit fashionable, but have definitely left the crack-showing period of my life. If I can't squat all the way to the floor without showing some cheek (or some fashionably high waisted panties) I'm not purchasing. And, yes, I squat all the way to the floor in fitting rooms.
My main shopping dilemna is that without going high-end, it is difficult to find fashion-forward looks that aren't in the Juniors dept. I have a small frame, so sizes there work for me, but the styles no longer do. In the womens department it tends to be a bit heavy on the "mom jean" (which to me is defined by the small back pockets) or clothes made for women with a larger frame.
I think the key issue here is that shopping is more of a developed skill than people realize. Women that can take a successful half-hour shopping trip are pros. It's taken a lot of hours of trial and error (an investment in my eyes) to find the stores and brands and sizes and styles that work for me. However, now I know that going to GAP is always a waste of time and to grab all the size 6 mid-rises from the sale rack at Express. A discriminating eye in Juniors at Kohl's can turn up gems, any store with loud music at the mall will be a failure.
For someone who hates to shop (or has no time to shop) this is probably the insurmountable hurdle. When my sister and I got old enough to realize that there was no reason for our mother to be unfashionable, we would include mom in our shopping trips (and even shop for her clothes!) We get the family togetherness and she got a refresher course in all fashion knowledge that she missed out on while focusing on us. Now she often shocks (and outshines) me with her fabulousness.
Of course, part of being a teen is rebelling against your parents, who are uncool, no matter what. That's just a fact that all parents face.
I think the key issue here is that shopping is more of a developed skill than people realize. Women that can take a successful half-hour shopping trip are pros. It's taken a lot of hours of trial and error (an investment in my eyes) to find the stores and brands and sizes and styles that work for me.
YES, THIS. It is really stunning to me that there are people here going "But it is not that hard to find something!" -- it may not be "that hard" for someone who has been living in a certain culture for over 20 years, who has spent countless hours absorbing the relevant information and learning how to navigate the incredibly complex fashion landscape. And I'm saying this as someone who both likes shopping and fashion and all these things, and still has a hell of a time finding anything that fits.
Also, I think anyone who hasn't actually seen "mom jeans" in person is probably living a pretty particular cultural life, probably limited to people under 30 or so who, first of all, have the luxury of considering shopping for clothing a potentially fun and varied experience (rather than one of many mere bills to pay), and then have access to malls and/or cities with nice stores (e.g. the Gap) in them. Secondly, even those who would be able to do that sort of thing financially speaking choose not to for a variety of reasons -- some of them for purely utilitarian reasons, some of them because their actual local culture normalizes a very unfashionable but comfortably familiar sort of "look" (and I think this is what the case is for a lot of the mom jeans that get sold).
City people. I'm not attacking people from the city, I live in the city now and plan to for at least a couple decades, but it's a completely different culture where fashion is valued very highly. I could go out to the country in my nicest outfit and people would be like "why are you wearing that?"
Haha, I've moved out of the city and don't really own any "mud clothes" if you will, not having had a lot of opportunity for mud interaction. I get mocked (or judged) constantly for not having any clothes in bad enough shape for a tromp through the woods. It doesn't upset me to get dirty in a pair of unstained, barely worn athletic shoes and jeans less than 2 years old, but it really bothers the people I'm with. I've had people nearly refuse to let me participate because I'll "mess up all my nice clothes". Maybe there's a kind of divide where I think the clothes are casual or old and they think they are fancy, but at the end of the day aren't they my clothes to ruin?
Well it's the classic dichotomy: just as city people look down on country people for being "hicks", and dressing unfashionably, so do country people look down on city people for being "out of touch" and hoity-toity. These are all stereotypes, but I find it's largely true. When people worry about your clothes, it's likely because they feel uneasy and perhaps inferior in the city, so when a city person comes to them they reflect that judgement back by othering the city person on their home turf. It's often also genuine concern that you many not know what you're getting yourself into, and also, in more impoverished areas they themselves would not want to get muddy in what they see as perhaps more expensive or fancier clothing in order to preserve them. It's funny, when I was young a used to get so intimidated visiting the city and feel so strange, and now that it's my home I find myself picking up city attitudes, like going to visit my parents and thinking everyone looks like a hick.
Yeah, its so harsh, I'm not sure why there is this need for competition. I don't think of my country neighbors as hicks, and (to the best of my knowledge) I've never disparaged their lifestyle. A common phrase out of my mouth is the exclamation, "I chose to live here. I prefer it!" Apparently a history of city living prevents you from enjoying a slower-pace life or quiet evenings.
In the end, the clothing issue between groups is just a judgement based on what you can see of a person. In a few months (or years) when I have jeans with holes and stains and shoes caked with red dirt, I'll be an accepted member of the community. But high heels and blouses will keep be an outsider forever.
For sure, I mean just imagine if you walked by someone in the city who was wearing mom jeans, and old sweatshirt and stained hikers. They would stick out like a sore thumb. It's the same in the country with very stylish or expensive clothes. Like I said, that is kind of a stereotype as clearly not every country person wears ugly clothes all the time, but in the city I see people wearing tottering heels during the day and think nothing of it, whereas at home they would look completely ridiculous. I don't think that if you just wear plain jeans and runners that people are going to freak out (unless they are intense farmers and I've met a few of those), but if you live in a really small town now it's pretty obvious to everyone that you're from the city, trust me. From that they simply assume that you only own fancy expensive clothes, hence the chastising. Living half in the city and half in the country is a pretty hilarious experience, I must admit :)
I disagree with some of the ideas set forth by earlier posters.
"Mom jeans" are not the equivalent of a "stained sweatshirt." They are jeans that are cut in a style not favored by the mainstream, fashion-congruent majority. (By fashion-congruent, I don't mean clotheshorses like Sex and the City characters, but people who hope to merely fit in with the overarching norms of the time).
Women who wear "Mom Jeans" in the manner of the SNL skit appear clean, with unstained, un-torn, comfortable clothing.
I object to the sentiments underlying Unfunny Feminist's statement "I can say with confidence that everyone can make time to take an extra few seconds to put on something that fits and looks good."
1. What one person or even 1 million people consider to "look good" is really not the concern of some people. For example, I grow out my copious body hair and care not a whit that millions of other people find it far worse than ill-fitting or not "good looking." It looks and feels good to me and I harm no one with it and I am hygenic; end of story. I am aware that people will continue to make judgments about me, but they are in the wrong for doing so, not I.
And I am just as justified in posting a piece complaining about people's snap judgments as I am in posting a piece complaining about Virgin Airway's sexism in its new advert, or questioning mainstream society's unexamined obsession with marriage.
2. I really don't know what type of time other people have on their hands, nor how they can best use it in light of their other life events and obligations. Neither do I feel comfortable making statements about other people's time and how they should or should not use it in order to appear "presentable" according to some other people's standards.
3. The sentiment expressed by LindseyLou--that mom jeans "suggest that women have given up"--intrigues me. A women that looks as though she has given up on being physically pleasing to society, who looks as though physical appearance is not tops of her list...is a bad thing? I'm NOT suggesting that congruence with mainstream standards is bad (I myself work to conform in many ways to them). But, I am interested in the idea that we should fret that some women are not rushing to make themselves physically palatable according to the standards of a society that incessantly demands women's physical attractiveness and palatableness alike.
Also, this is tangential to my point, but I respectfully ask people who are not a size 28 to not assume what is and is not available, and how "easily" it is available to women size 28, 30, 32, etc. Lane Bryant does not have a lot of clothes that reach to size 28 and 30, and even if they did, Lane Bryant's prices are not within everyone's range. Much of what is available for plus-size women size 20 and higher (Woman Within; Roaman's, etc.) is, in fact, cut and designed in a less than-current fashion, and often ill-fitting to boot (especially with the inexpensive fabrics used by these catalogs).
It's not only inaccurate but, I daresay, hurtful and offensive, to suggest that size 28 people who struggle to find *affordable* clothes deemed "fashionable" by the majority are just not trying hard enough and that this reflects poorly on their "values."
Indeed, I feel the need to add a "WTF?"
What values are we supposed to be concerned about here, again? I thought the "values" that we want to encourage society to take note of are those of kindness, open-mindedness, intellectual curiosity, attention to the traditionally disfavored of society (including those branded by society as "fashion victims"), commitment to equality and social justice. Suggesting that people ditch their yoked jeans and bolero jackets in order to fit in enough to mainstream society so that said mainstream will then become receptive enough to discern that person’s kindness, open-mindedness, etc. is, I believe, regressive and more than a little effed up.
But, again, size 28-women's fashion options is *not* the point of the Mom Jeans original poster, or indeed my point. I feel the need to stress this, lest I receive several replies focusing on what fashions are or are not available to sizely women, and how cheap and yet fashionable they can be, and so forth.
Her point--with which I agree--is that some women are perfectly happy not conforming to society's blueprints, that they are hurting no one by doing it, that they are clean and presentable, and that they resent the mainstream---and that includes feminists who ally themselves with the "fashion-congruent = presentable" school of thought--giving them grief for it.
With respect, if a person finds herself reacting negatively to someone else's "mom jeans" or stirrup pants, I suggest SHE is the one who needs to question her own values.
Yes, people are socialized to make snap judgments based on surface attributes, but we can work on ourselves, make ourselves conscious of the harm in it. I've done this in my own life. I used to see certain types of people and devleop a knee-jerk opinion about them. With effort, I trained myself to step back from the situation and question "Why am I making this judgment about this person before I even know their story?"
And for those non-reflective types who wouldn't dream of second-guessing their own grossly prejudicial (and often sizist and ageist and classist) snap judgments? We can shake our heads over them, and write Feministing posts decrying them. But we have no reason to say with resignation "but that's just the way people are," no more than we should say "boys will be boys" when faced with misogyny.
(Please note that I'm not saying that Unfunny Feminist's own values are messed up, but that we don't need to make apologies for the harmful and unxamined ones of others.)
But the object of criticism here is the SNL skit. I think it is quite apparent that women are subject to ridiculous beauty and fashion standards, especially those who are also discriminated by their age and weight. However, is this skit guilty of admonishing women for their fashion choices? I'm not so convinced. Like someone else mentioned, I do believe parody can enlighten us about things like that dichotomy between mom vs. human, ie) when you become a mom, you are not yourself anymore, you are a mom and must look like one.
Has there been any effort in this thread to discuss the actual definition of mom jeans? I did say that I don't see those kind of jeans on anyone, however, I DO see regular rise jeans (no ass crack showing). I think mom jeans might be those kind that come up past the waist. I think that jeans that some call mom jeans, I would not.
I don't think that the derision of the mom jean equals approval of the low rise jean.(I actually think that the low rise jean might become the mom jean of the future.)
As an aside: Might be interesting to see a series of photos of people in jeans and see if they consider their jeans to be mom jeans.
We always defined mom-jeans as both high-rise and tapered-leg, with strangely placed pockets. I think maybe they're just the standard old Jordache jeans from the 80s.
I read an article in Harper's once that made the (tongue-in-cheek) argument that you can tell which era of a man's life was the best by looking at the clothes he wears. If he wears 80s clothes, it was the 80s, if he wears 90s clothes it was the 90s, etc. And I think there's a lot of truth to this, and that it applies to many women as well. I always assumed the women in our department office who wear mom jeans went to high school in the 80s, then got busy raising families, and just haven't paid attention to fashion since then. They also listen to 80s rock... And by this logic, mom-jeans will soon be defined as low-rise ass-crack-revealing jeans with a g-string sticking out. And kids will be all embarassed that their moms show up to the PTA meeting dressed like that.
That being said, I'm a mom, I went to high school in the 90s, and I'm not still wearing the disheveled grunge fashions that were the standard during my Seattle-area teen years. (Although I do occasionally dig out my old Doc Martens and bomber jacket when heading downtown for a punk show...) And none of my friends are either. So I like to think that the whole once-you-become-a-mom-you-cease-to-be-an-individual-or-a-sexual-being thing is becoming a thing of the past. But then, I like to think a lot of things that may or may not map onto reality...
"With respect, if a person finds herself reacting negatively to someone else's "mom jeans" or stirrup pants, I suggest SHE is the one who needs to question her own values."
Perfectly said.
In the end, the point of the fashion industry is to make you feel bad enough about the clothes you have to buy more every season. If you are sitting in judgment of what someone else is wearing, you have bought into that marketing entirely.
In the end, the point of the fashion industry is to make you feel bad enough about the clothes you have to buy more every season.
Possibly taking this off on a tangent, but yes! Yes, yes, and yes, I have rolled my eyes when skinny jeans and tights under tunics are hailed as the Big Thing one season and then next year's Glamour magazine has a big, "These just aren't flattering on anyone, and they're so last year, toss 'em." Why weren't they unflattering LAST year? (The secret is that they were, but no one was going to say that while everyone was tripping over themselves to buy them.)
I love clothing, but I generally pick A) classic pieces that aren't trendy and therefore aren't going to look odd later on, and B) things I genuinely like, not things I like because they make me look "in".
This means that when I go through my closet and get rid of things, I get rid of things because my taste has changed, not because the fashion world's taste has changed.
This, this, a thousand times this. Eloquently put. Anyone who assumes it's a trivial matter to "look good" according to society's standards needs to take a good hard look at their own privilege (body size, access to stores, time commitments, having money left over at the end of the month, etc.).
Anyone who assumes it's a trivial matter to "look good" according to society's standards needs to take a good hard look at their own privilege (body size, access to stores, time commitments, having money left over at the end of the month, etc.).
That's it exactly, EntomologyGirl. Please also add disability issues to your list. I have little energy left over to shop. Some days I have barely enough energy to shower. Thinking about fashion is very low priority when you are just trying to make it through the day.
Those who have the luxury to care about fashion are the only ones who would ever tell someone else, "It's so easy!" You can't tell by looking at a person what their life is like. To quote a very old song, "Don't worry about what shows from without but the love that lives within."
Thank you! Exactly.
I feel like a lot of people here look down on any woman that follows fashion. Does it make me less of a feminist to wear fashionable clothes? No.
Anyone who says they don't care what they look like has to be lying on some level. everyone cares about what they look like, otherwise they would just grab the first 5 things they see at the store and buy them. I realize comfort is a factor for a lot of people, but you still care that those comfortable "mom jeans" look good to your standards. If that wasn't true, then half of you would be wearing those acid wash jeans you're all dissing.
Everyone needs to just wear what makes them feel beautiful and stop serving all that Haterade.
I don't think it's an issue of looking down on women who are fashionable. I dress fashionably, but I do tend to look down on (or, more accurately, pity) women who are enslaved to fashion and to the patriarchal beauty standard.
I think it is appropriate to turn a critical feminist eye toward an industry built on establishing a division between the haves and have nots, emphasizing insecurities, and encouraging consumption in women.
I had an interesting experience a while ago of needing to buy technical gloves. I got overwhelmed at the display, there were so many colors and patterns. I walked around to the men's side and there were three choices: small, medium, and large. One size only came in black, one size in red, and one size in blue. It was liberating to just. buy. gloves. The experience really started me noticing how the fashion industry manipulates women into paying so much for clothing, and feeling so badly about ourselves if we are dated.
I look back at my high school pictures and the boys were wearing jeans and tee shirts identical to the ones they wore in college and that my son is wearing now.
I agree completely. Similarly, we often go to the boys department to find just plain blue jeans with no pink stitching or rhinestones and for athletic shoes without pricesses or bratz on them for our girls. And the exact same brand of shoes or jeans will be cheaper in the boys dept than in the girls dept, because people have already been trained to think of girls stuff as more expensive.
I dress like an on-trend student, just as I wear makeup and shave my legs. You're right, it doesn't make me less of a feminist. I think a lot of the people here are just trying to show that if someone wants to wear mom jeans, who gives a shit? Fashion is a totally artificial construct and for someone to judge someone else on whether they are stylish or not is anti-feminist. Like nestra said, it exploits insecurities. It's a matter of being aware.
I don't care whether we are talking about being fashionable, non-fashionable, counter-fashionable, adopting an affectation, clothing, hairstyle, makeup, accessories, or any other variation on the theme you'd care to name. My standard boils down to two questions:
1) Where is the harm in this person looking this way?
2) Where is the value in my judging it to be bad?
Ok folks, this blog is catered to the new mom set (I am not a mom but it seems pretty accurate to me) however the article show how mom jeans get found, why people wear them, and why it's not "giving up"; it's having more important things to worry about. There are also some helpful examples!
http://kimnfam.blogspot.com/2008/10/baby-is-crying-but-i-must-have-new.html
The OP wrote that "New moms who are all about losing the "baby weight" are really, symbollically, trying to regain their freedom and status." I took this home to my fabulous second-wave-and-loves-clothes mom last night; we totally agree.
More than anything, I think 'mom jeans' points to the fact that heterosexual moms are expected to rear children with little (if any) help from the father, to keep house, and on top of that to work full-time. Time for girlfriends, reading, reflection, or shopping for clothes that fit and look good? Hahahaha!
As the OP alluded to, it's paradoxically unacceptable to accept not looking straight out of W once you've got a baby. But, said my mom, there's more: if moms DO manage some personal time (even if the child is in tow), God help you, because suddenly you're an undevoted and anti-virtuous woman who must not have enough work to do. Or, even worse, a mother who actively cares for her appearance when she's supposed to be a mother, not a woman, may question her lot as maid-of-all-work and go so far as compromise paternity.
So maybe something like Naomi Wolf's description of women's relationship to the beauty industry is going on: mothers are only virtuous if they continually strive for 'perfection' but forever lack, especially in the self-presentation department. I see some elided anxiety in the SNL skit, where (IMO) the women are still very attractive despite the unflattering jeans.
This video clip enraged me beyond belief, so don't expect a logical, well-constructed, even-flowing reply here. I want to get this out as loudly as I can: I think that those "MOM" jeans look 100 times BETTER than the horrible, unflattering, spare tire, hip-hugger, hoochi momma jeans that everyone is wearing today. The "MOM" jeans are WAY more flattering to the figure, are more sleek, elegant, and eye catching, imo. I don't care if they're "OLD", or "NOT IN STYLE" anymore.
This just emphasizes the absurdity, and arrogance of today's infantile, superficial, and shallow society we live in now, where women HAVE to be showing some skin, or else they are deemed "Not a woman" as the video clearly stated. And shows like this can ridicule ANYTHING that's outside of what's acceptable, right down to clothes. In other words, "If you're not like us, you're no one."
Well, to all of those who share that sentiment in any way, FUCK YOU! I'm sick and tired of the FAKE painted on look. It's utterly disgusting and ridiculous. At least in the 70's and 80's women could look good and still be natural, which is why they got away with wearing the MOM jeans and being a total knock-out. I'm sorry but today's fashions don't even hold a candle next to yesterday's.
Ever watch FOOTLOOSE? Tell me she didn't look good in those jeans! And yes, I am a girl saying that.
I disagree. I wear "hip hugger" jeans because I think they flatter my figure, unlike "mom jeans"
I'm 23, I'm in good shape, and I like my butt and my hips, so why would I want to hid the way I'm shaped by wearing pants that make me look like I weigh 30 pound more than I acually do? I'm sorry if I don't want to look like my ass is 2 feet long!
I think regardless of what you thought of that video (which I totally loved, Tina Fey is amazing), It's obvious that those jeans are not flattering. On the off chance that you've never seen any of those SNL cast members outside of this video, you should do a Google search on them. Almost all of those girls are in decent shape, and those jeans do nothing but make them look bigger than they are.
A few months ago, I saw Stacy London from What Not to Wear on a talk show. She was talking about how wearing the wrong clothes can make your body look like it's bigger than it is, and to prove her point, she put on some mom jeans...and her ass looked enormous.
Just so I understand what you're saying... "flattering" is another way of saying "look as thin as possible" and "unflattering" means "making you look fat"?
I am just speechless.
No. I was not saying that.
I'm saying that as a woman, I have curves. I'm not ashamed of the way I'm shaped, I'm proud of it so I wear "hip hugger" jeans. I'm not wearing them to "look as thin as possible", if that was the case, I would probably wear skirts to hide my thighs. I wear what makes me feel good about myself. I don't see how in any way, shape, or form, that would make me un-feminist.
and also, please don't put things in quotations that I didn't actually say.
No. I was not saying that.
I'm saying that as a woman, I have curves. I'm not ashamed of the way I'm shaped, I'm proud of it so I wear "hip hugger" jeans. I'm not wearing them to "look as thin as possible", if that was the case, I would probably wear skirts to hide my thighs. I wear what makes me feel good about myself. I don't see how in any way, shape, or form, that would make me un-feminist.
and also, please don't put things in quotations that I didn't actually say.
I thought it was fairly obvious how the quotes were being used. It was a technique to separate a phrase from the rest of the sentence and connect it as a definition to a word. I'm sorry if that was confusing.
To use direct quotes from what you wrote, you seem to imply that 'unflattering' equals "ass look(ing) enormous" and deriding so-called mom jeans as unflattering only because they made the actresses wearing them (assuming they were not also wearing any additional padding) as "do(ing) nothing but make them look bigger than they are."
I am glad that you are in what you consider "decent" shape, but interested in what you would consider an 'indecent' shape. Would that be without "curves", "30 pound(sic) more" than you do, or with a "2 feet long(sic)" ass?
It is so important to confront our biases. Do you understand how the quotes of what you did actually say make it seem that you are very prejudice against people who are not of what you might consider a "decent" size?
I'm also confused by the statement that "wrong clothes" "make your body look like it's bigger than it is." So right clothes are those that make your body look the size it is or even smaller. Really? Why should that even be a criteria for choosing clothing at all? What does that say about us?
No, I'm not saying that "right" clothes are any kind of clothes at all. I just don't understand why a woman would want to hide the way she looks.
I don't think it is mean of me to say that "mom jeans" are a particular style of jean that is now considered out of style. They reached their apex in the 80s and now have been replaced by lower cut, wide leg jeans. The same is said of leisure suits, and poodle skirts.
Now if you want to wear a poodle skirt, and you feel confident in it, then by all means, go for it. But don't get so livid when someone teases you about it. In our culture it is considered beautiful to look thin. You have to admit that, it's just a fact. If I wear jeans that make me look good and make me look thinner than if I were to wear mom jeans, why is that sooooo terrible? I'm happy.
I just feel like everyone here is hating on any woman that enjoys current fashions.
I just feel like everyone here is hating on the conjecture that teasing someone because they do not choose their clothes in order to be considered beautiful in certain culture is okay.
If you "don't understand why a woman would want to hide the way she looks," you have lived a shallow life, you choose to go through life with blinders on, or you are unable to understand a different perspective.
People should be able to wear what they want, what makes them feel comfortable, without ever being mocked by anyone. People should get livid when other people are rude or inconsiderate. People should be livid when anyone expects them to just accept societal norms that are unhealthy or arbitrary.
If you enjoy following current fashions, go for it. There is no need to put down other people's choices, no need to argue that is acceptable to mock them for it, no need to assert that people should not get angry at having their appearance teased because they were asking for it by how they dressed, and definitely no need to get on the defensive about it.
Your shape and fashion choices were not ridiculed on a national TV show. Stop making trying to turn it around as if you were the victim because a few people have pointed out that making fun of people for how they look is wrong. It makes you sound a little desperate for acceptance.
Accept your own choices with pride, but I think it is wrong to even insinuate that it should be acceptable to make fun of someone for choosing otherwise, or that they should not get "livid" over such ridicule.
I just feel like everyone here is hating on any woman that enjoys current fashions.
Wow. Everyone? That's quite a charge.
I think many of us already made it clear that there's nothing wrong with being fashionable, and most of us even (gasp!) admit to dressing fashionably. But there's a huge difference between dressing fashionably and being a slave to fashion and the ridiculous patriarchal beauty standard. Is this distinction really that hard to get?
"But don't get so livid when someone teases you about it."
When you tease somebody about how they look, YOU'RE BEING AN ASSHOLE. Didn't your kindergarten teacher manage to teach you that?
Haha, seriously. Way to get straight to the point there. Yow.
I never said it was fair. Everyone gets teased for something. It's not always well intentioned either. But I've learned to laugh it off and keep going. Can you honestly say you've NEVER teased anyone for something? Even if it was just in your mind?
I just think it's a little unnessecary to get so upset about this skit. It was meant to be funny (and for 99% of people it was) I feel like some of these posts on the community are for things that are being blown out of proportion (no not most of them, but some).
I guess I just want to go through life being happy, and if i'm always looking at things through a microscope to see if they might insult someone, I would be missing all the good things about life.
and besides. SNL's whole thing is making fun of people. why is it that when it makes fun of something you hold dear, you get upset? They make fun of all kind of women. Vain, ugly, pretty, smart, crazy, moms, single girls,kids, society, men, famous people, homeless people....no one is safe!
I never said it was fair. Everyone gets teased for something. It's not always well intentioned either. But I've learned to laugh it off and keep going. Can you honestly say you've NEVER teased anyone for something? Even if it was just in your mind?
I just think it's a little unnessecary to get so upset about this skit. It was meant to be funny (and for 99% of people it was) I feel like some of these posts on the community are for things that are being blown out of proportion (no not most of them, but some).
I guess I just want to go through life being happy, and if i'm always looking at things through a microscope to see if they might insult someone, I would be missing all the good things about life.
I never said it was fair. Everyone gets teased for something. It's not always well intentioned either. But I've learned to laugh it off and keep going. Can you honestly say you've NEVER teased anyone for something? Even if it was just in your mind?
I just think it's a little unnessecary to get so upset about this skit. It was meant to be funny (and for 99% of people it was) I feel like some of these posts on the community are for things that are being blown out of proportion (no not most of them, but some).
I guess I just want to go through life being happy, and if i'm always looking at things through a microscope to see if they might insult someone, I would be missing all the good things about life.
"But don't get so livid when someone teases you about it. In our culture it is considered beautiful to look thin."
"Can you honestly say you've NEVER teased anyone for something? Even if it was just in your mind?"
Uh, ok. First of all, there's a reason people don't just spout off everything that goes through their brains. It's called common decency. Secondly, you seem to be justifying mocking someone because of their appearance, and saying that if they aren't hot they should just deal with it and not get angry over teasing. I wonder: how is that NOT a completely anti-feminist position? Great, I've been teased and I've laughed it off, now does that make the teasing at all ok? Wtf?
Most mothers do not look like Angelina Jolie after they give birth. They look like the women in the SNL skit. What is so appalling/disturbing about the way a typical mother's body looks? Is it the sense that her body is "used"? Is it a fear of dying that makes us fear the fat that builds in a natural way on women's bodies during as they age? Is it a fear of the way society limits mothers so severely? I wonder sometimes if teen girls don't try to distance themselves so dramatically from their mothers because they want to be escape the constrictions they see on all mothers. "Somehow, if we don't look like them, or carry the same purses, or drive the same cars, or wear our hair the same way, we won't be trapped in that trap." Without even a full consciousness of it, there is a part of them that is keenly aware of these limitations. New moms who are all about losing the "baby weight" are really, symbollically, trying to regain their freedom and status.
I loved that paragraph!!! This was a WONDERFUL post! Thank you!
My problem with the jeans, they're poofy and have an elastic band at the top.
Elastic bands are going to cinch you and leave indents into your skin. (which are itchy and uncomfortable). and then poofy is just 80s wrong. It's like there's a big pocket of air inside of them. I'm not saying it makes the person look fatter or anything like that, it just gives a weird body shape. (Which "weird" is again subjective)
I -live- in my jeans, which is why most of them are shredded and covered in paint. I understand the issue of "pleasing the man" but what's wrong with wearing jeans that you find yourself attractive in? I'm not necessarily saying that "attractive" is held to some standard of society.
Although, what do you personally define as attractive when society is not involved? (that's an open question for anyone, really)
Fashion and beauty is so touchy to discuss when it's hard to define our personal ideals. If we solely dressed on comfort, most people would wear pajamas or sweatpants every day.
I could have been wrong then. I thought mom jeans were simply jeans that came to the waist line, not necessarily elastic. Just regular jeans that don't stop at the hips. I'm curious now.
the jeans they are mocking in the skit are also tapered, light in colour, and too short. I think they also go out at the hips, like a lot further than the actual hip line.
I must admit, my friends and I have been guilty of mocking Mom jeans on more than one occasion, and we took that to mean your stereotypical Jordache jeans from the 80s: high waist, often with elastic, flared hips, kinda poofy in the thigh area, with drastically tapered legs and strangely placed pockets. And often worn too short, with a long Tshirt or blouse that's tucked in, and, of course, the classic fanny pack. Also, a lot of "mom jeans" have little pleats, or whatever you call them (I can't sew, and am therefore kind of incompetent with the terminology) coming down from the waist, which causes them to kind of poof out in the front, right in front of your abdomen - especially if you have your shirt tucked in.
Right, because having your ass crack stick out the top of the waistband is so much more flattering. Plumber butt, not just for men anymore!
mom jeans? you mean as opposed to "teen jeans" or "20 something jeans" with the muffin top, butt crack attractive look? gimme a break and gimme "mom jeans" anyday.. geeez.