乐生活It’s a bit old these days when I don’t brush my micro blog on the road, so I can see the discussion about when Chinese women will have the freedom to dress.
It’s also a familiar routine: an article (maybe several) comparing the so-called "foreign countries", reflecting on why Chinese women dare not wear exposed clothes, whipping the long-standing slut humiliation, and proposing "I have the freedom to dress casually, no one else to put on my beak", has received a lot of support.
Of course, some people frown and say "Women’s Fist Warning". Some say, "There is no law forbidding you to wear anything on the streets of China." Others say "Why don’t you safeguard the freedom of elders to show their bellies in summer" (so-called "Beijing Bikini").
There is also a well-known public number on the Wechat, surnamed Lei, who said with a strong voice, "You have the freedom to wear anything, but I also have the freedom to evaluate you." I was stunned.
To put it bluntly, the so-called freedom of dress is not a matter of "freedom" at all, but a matter of social discipline. The man with the surname Lei mentioned above is like trying to solve a Foucault problem with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s a mistake indeed. (even reveals a hint of greasy, manual dog head)
With regard to dressing, except for some religious and conservative groups, women’s dressing codes do not appear as compulsory rules. Indeed, in a secular society, no one will force you to wear a black veil, no need to wear a jacket over the buttocks, bare arms and thighs is no problem.
However, the rule that "you can’t do that as a woman" is internalized. More often than not, it is not a direct instruction from any authority, but a woman who warns herself in front of the mirror that I can’t wear a miniskirt and bare my chest so as not to be said obscene.
Even this body discipline is not confined to morality, but is similar to "I’m too fat to wear tight things" and "I can’t wear black colors". I remember a friend who had just come to the United States saying to me, "Look at those girls with thighs so thick that they dare wear shorts? A famous fashion brand director said that in China, women are keen to buy clothes with their arms covered, and suspenders are never easy to sell. They have "freedom", but they are in the shackles of aesthetics and discipline.
This kind of "daring" problem comes from the social discipline, which is absorbed by oneself in the subtle digestion, and strengthened into a set of intrinsic and stubborn values in repeated contacts with others, the exposure of mass media and even the praise of social networks.
Indeed, the boys were right, "I don’t care what you wear." However, the public’s evaluation, people’s intentional or unintentional pointing, fashion magazines and public numbers of "education" all form part of the social discipline. It is everywhere and pervasive, allowing women to closely examine their appearance and clothing every day, and even to examine each other and join in the body-shaming of other women. For example, other female stars are fat, ugly and black.
There are also social and cultural reasons. East Asian society advocates collectivity. People are more inclined to know themselves from other people’s evaluation, individual and other people’s relationship, and regard others’feedback as an important part of self-evaluation (this even penetrates into the way of thinking, which is discussed in detail in Nisbett’s The Map of Thinking).
Under the influence of authoritarian society, the simplicity of social values, the rudeness of aesthetics and the lack of respect for diversity will make the discipline of appearance stronger and stronger, and make the ego fall into the shackles of self-examination and mutual examination all the time. Otherwise, it will be surrounded by the insecurity of "exclusion".
For the subordination of the collective, sometimes it is difficult to get rid of, the value imposed by the collective and identity is very stubborn – and the content of discipline will change with the field of group value.
For example, when I wear a skirt on the street, I don’t care about people saying that I’m "fantastic dress" and I don’t know him or her at all. However, if a girl in a small skirt tells me that this skirt is not good (or if you are poor enough to wear a national brand and not wear a Japanese brand), my heart will be sore to some extent.—— I am more or less defined by the identity of this group and internalized in its value.
What’s more, I certainly want to wear what I wear in the United States, but I may care if I can pay elegantly in high-end cafes (I don’t want to be considered illiterate/unable to speak English/rude); on the contrary, my mother doesn’t care about taking out her own thermos cup to drink Chinese wolfberry in cafes ("I’m a tourist I don’t understand"). But they frown at my low-breasted suit.
Then someone will ask, is it all right for a woman to comment on men’s clothes, laugh at "straight men" and scold "uncle greasy"?
First of all, I disapprove of this kind of behavior, which is also a kind of external humiliation, humiliation is always bad. But the key is, how do you mock straight men, most of them will still go to work in checkered shirts, without combing their hair or washing their faces; even if the Internet denounces "Beijing Bikini", do the old gunmen care? They don’t care at all. Instead, they feel very manly.
In a way, "no care" is a privilege that is not disciplined. They don’t need to care because in the values they believe in, "the appearance of men is not important." For a long time, women have been the object of gaze for both traditional male chauvinism and consumerism. Women need to internalize the value of appearance. Appearance anxiety and even shame are more often attributed to women, even to the degree of abnormality (for example, 90% of women with anorexia and bulimia). Comparing women’s freedom of dress with "Beijing Bikini" is a shake.
But do men have other anxieties? Of course. If you want to laugh at a man who is not long enough to work, he mostly turns his face – this is related to his "masculinity", which is the most stringent social discipline.
Also, a friend who is good at writing and interested in himself, I encouraged him to come to the media industry three or five times, but he hesitated for half a day and refused. The salary level of the media industry is not as good as that of the farmer, I understand; but I asked him, "Are you short of money? He shook his head. This partly explains why there aren’t many men in this profession – men are more or less disciplined in terms of salary, occupation, RV, and sacrifice part of their career choices.
Appearance discipline can also erode them at the head of consumerism and the visual economy, such as fitness. The number of men taking steroids for fitness has increased dramatically in the past decade, and they can’t escape the social scrutiny of body shape, which will only increase.
For the so-called "freedom to dress", it is certainly not enough to just shout two slogans of plastic equality, nor is the gender perspective itself helpful to solve this problem. If you can’t understand the root of social discipline, the channels it plays, the social texture it exists, and target any group (what kind of Chinese men, etc.), it’s really just a sniper.
The difficulty of liberating people from social discipline is like liberating the French people from the Bastille. It is to interrogate the value of society, the social identity of a person, and even the source of authority. Finally, it inevitably leads to the end of the bomb (fog).
But I think it’s important. It allows people to really understand their own context, understand the value of the word "I". No matter your gender, no matter what you wear, you have the freedom to feel the most beautiful.
