Redefining the lady.

This afternoon, my housemate Jessica was ruminating to me about her blog entry for women's studies. "Where do I fit?" she asked, " I like men, I'm not motherly, and I'm certainly not a lady!" her blog can be found at jswatters.blogspot.com, a well crafted piece that I hope several of you will respond to.


SHe got me to thinking, though, about this set of parameters that may be referred to as "ladylike" (or gentlemanly,respectively). Ladylike, I think, referred at one time not to behaving as a lady, but behaving as the lady. The term was coined ages ago, in reference to the comportment of the lord's wife, the matriarchal head of a noble house,charged with maintaining the house staff and producing an heir. Her demeanor represented the pride of her house, and her stature reflected that of her family. We hear ladylike, though, and we think of etiquitte lessons involving the balancing of books on one's head, of trailing a pinky into the air as we sip our tea, or wearing a hat, notable for its wanton garishness, to church on Sunday. We think posture, poise, gentility, chantilly lace adorning a waifish young belle riding sidesaddle across a field of honeysuckle. With regard to current academia, we think deferrment to male superiority, speaking in reponse though not initiation, knowing one's place to be decidedly a rung or two below. But, in modern terms, what is it to be like the Lady, and is it really bad?

We have, over many decades, worked to correct the glaring inequalities intrinsic to the archaic idea of ladyhood, and the new millennium finds us dispensing even with those "polite" inequalities espoused by the 19th century's cult of true womanhood. No longer are women in the U.S. barred from voting or owning property; rather, they are active participants in the political and economic machine. When once women were considered the property of their husband and subject to even his most martial laws, they now find themselves in a position of self-determination, justified by current academia, supported by numerous schools of liberal thought, and protected by laws that assert their individuality. For previous generations, a woman's list of career goals was, of necessity, shorter and of lesser regard (and frequency) than her grocery list; today's woman has greater access to the career of her choice than ever before, and gender-stratified earning potential is creeping, albeit slowly, toward equalibrium. And yet, ladylike remains a positive adjective in our cultural lexicon, despite its historical and archaic implications.

History, academic discourse, science, law and economy have all demonstrated, condemned, and systematically reduced the oppressive components of being ladylike. Nonetheless, young women are still taught that being ladylike is a positive and enriching pursuit. One must assume, therefore, that the term, divested of its social constraints, encompasses a number of attributes beneficial to the modern woman, enough so that the archetype is proliferated. Essentially, the word and its concurrent image lives on, redefined to meet the needs of women in a more egalitarian culture.

One might discount women's etiquitte as nothing more than affectation, a set of arbitrarily assigned behavioral norms serving no actual purpose beyond supporting the image of the frail, demurr and wholly incompetent 19th century coquette. Personal appearance, too, could be viewed as such; a woman who is meticulously dressed, who dons makeup appropriately, who sits with a certain posture and walks with a certain stride might well be adhering to the traditional rules of lady-ism. This does not mean, however, that attributes like conscientious appearance, courteous articulation, and deliberate stature are equally as damning as the mechanisms of oppression that once mandated them. Employing polite language could certainly be construed as a demonstration of deferrment, but could equally be interprited as an assertion of respect for one's audience, a description of how one wishes to be addressed in return, or an attempt to portray oneself as professional. Conscientious dress and makeup, while certainly posing a possibility of intended seduction, can also indicate a positive self image or attention to detail. The way a person sits, stands or walks can just as easily demonstrate a drive toward perfection or a air of intention and competence as it can indicate accession to institutional folkways. One cannot categorically condemn all aspects of a phenomenon based on its associated historical accompaniments; one must consider other possibilities.

Consider the example of the job interview, in which we learned that women who do not wear makeup to a job interview are offered between 13% and 17% less than their made-up counterparts. The implication here is that women who present as feminine, as sexy, are rewarded for their willing conformity to make appetites with greater pay. There is, however, another possibility worthy of consideration, one which may not draw these findings as oppressively as the above interpretation but still succeed in explaining them.

Women and men dress differently. A woman might wear a skirt suit to an interview, while a man might wear a shirt and tie. A woman may put make-up on and paint her nails, while a man might trim his facial hair. A woman might carry a purse, and a man a wallet. These are the expected norms of professional dress in current culture, and applicants are rightly expected to adhere to them. Thus, an applicant is able to describe in their personal grooming competence the level of competence they will display with regard to their job duties. If a woman lacks the attention to detail necessary to make up her face, or a man to trim his beard, one can usually assume they lack the attention to detail necessary to be trusted with rigorous job duties. Sex and oppression aside, differences in expected dress aside, few people would value a slob as highly as a well-kept individual.

In the Navy, we spent 10 weeks making and remaking our beds, folding and refolding our laundry, packing and repacking our bags. We were not taught these skills to equip us for some vitally-important bedmaking conflict; rather, by keeping one's rack and locker in perfect condition, a recruit could demonstrate his precision in handling those instruments of war that his career may someday lead him to. Personal civilian appearance is no different.

A person who is proud of themselves takes care of themselves, regardless of what specifics that care may entail. They make their outside reflect their inside; they take pride in their appearance, not to gain favor from men, but to describe their capability and demand esteem. They meet social norms, even exceed them, to show that they are capable of it.

To redefine ladylike, I think, one must consider appearance as an epression of self within the rules of a given situation. To be ladylike, today, a woman must not only present herself as perfectly capable, but be perfectly capable as well. For people to show her esteem, she must present herself as worthy of it. These rules apply no less to men; To be gentlemanly or ladylike, one must be skilled in appearance as in fact. As the lady of the house once did, the modern lady or gentleman must handle anything they face, be it oppression or interview, and look good doing it.

Incidentally, when I hire people, I am far more likely to hire a made-up woman than an unshaven man.






Others of us, I have noted, have cited such attributes as crossing one's legs or refraining from public belching as among those expected of a lady. Historically, however, there were constraints far more significant placed on women who wished to carry the title. They were barred from most employment beyond domestic or child-related work,