Opinions can be dangerous; I'll let the Supreme Court decide.
I think it would be more commented upon if O wore super-cool $300-dollar skinny-boy jeans. Maybe Levi's 501s are the only safe choice.
My mom wears "mom jeans," but she calls them bluyines, because she's Cuban. She also likes to watch people hit jonrones.
I'm thinking he should just go with casual khakis for that kind of situation, but a wise black woman could probably come up with something even better.
The jeans are totally dorky, yes, but that's probably deliberate. Michelle the fashionista would know how to steer him toward good jeans, so these have got to be part of a look.
I'm guessing Gap relaxed fit, by the way. They were what everyone wore in the mid-90s.
she calls them bluyines
When in Chile, I learned that the verb for "to dry hump" was bluyinear. No idea about spelling, but hilarious.
I'm guessing Gap relaxed fit, by the way. They were what everyone wore in the mid-90s.
Except for those of us who were ravers. We wore ridiculous JNCOs.
AWB: super-cool $300-dollar skinny-boy jeans.
{long pause} Why? <-- all-purpose
Maybe Levi's 501s are the only safe choice.
{more head scratching} They last forever and they look like jeans, as opposed to looking like pants made with denim. Safe or sensible?
max
['This thread is making me feel odd.']
They last forever and they look like jeans, as opposed to looking like pants made with denim.
There are jeans which don't look like pants made with denim which will still look more fashionable than 501s. Part of it is the particular type of denim used (although looking at Levi's' site, I see that they're selling 501s in trendier washes), part of it is the rise. 501s are higher-waisted than is currently the style.
When we saw the CNN coverage of the first pitch, my partner and I burst out "Holy shit, look at Obama's mom jeans!" at the exact same time. Now she owes me a coke.
My mom used to wear super tight bell bottoms. My mom weighs somewhere around 100 lbs. She's skinnier than Paris Hilton or whoever those skinny people were.
My mom doesn't wear jeans anymore but she could seriously rock a pair of skinny jeans from the gap in a size 2.
I am not my mom. I had some jeans that were like the world's most unflattering horrible jeans because they were bought used and cost 4 bucks. I was not sure what mom jeans were and the furor over mom jeans and my subsequent shame forced me to get some jeans that were cheap but I thought were not mom jeans.
Then I realized I am a mom so by definition whatever jeans I wear are mom jeans. Also, I have no freaking idea what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for mom jeans.
In any case, I believe the jeans I own are cleverly disguised mom jeans. But what if I am wrong? This keeps me up at night.
We can see that from the fact that you're commenting at 2:26 AM.
13.4. Define your clothes: do not be defined by them.
I am a mom so by definition whatever jeans I wear are mom jeans
Not necessarily. You might wear milf jeans.
I used to wear Gap Classic and their Boot Cut, but then they started wearing out really quickly, so I switched to Ann Taylor Loft jeans. A long time ago I wore Levis when they could be found at the Mass Army Navy store.
The Ann Taylor ones are a bit too low cut for me. I don't want to wear Mom jeans, but I really don't care for everything being so low-waisted. I don't want to show off my underwear every time I bend over.
There's another solution to that problem, BG.
We also see that Walt is commenting at 2:48 am. But perhaps he's not wearing jeans.
Jackmormon gets it right. At least the Gap part. I don't know if the nerdiness is deliberate.
I don't want too show off my butt crack either, apo.
BG would never get a job in the construction industry in Britain.
I only comment on Unfogged while dressed in my mother's panties and the American flag.
21: Man, there's just no pleasing some people.
There is still one more option for BG.
Levis 501s are the One True Jeans. Levis has been fucking around with them a bit, making them out of crappier denim, for example, but they are still the best jeans out there. Plus, the button fly saved my friend from accidentally cutting off his dick with a chisel.
26: By the time he'd gotten them unbuttoned, he'd thought better of his idea to instantly convert?
I think I used to wear something called the 512. There was a cool high quality, make your own jeans site where you got to pick the type of denim you wanted, but I think that they folded. There are a few now, but they don't look as good.
While those were certainly dorky jeans, I don't think I've ever seen jeans like those, particularly on a man, called mom jeans. I thought the essence of the mom jean was not just high waisted, but cut in at the waist in a way that emphasizes the pot-belly and ass, and with detailing noticeably different from the standard five-pocket jean -- maybe pleats, maybe no patch pockets on the back.
So there are three jean options for BG:
1. Mom jeans
2. showing underwear
3. showing butt crack.
I am not sure that 1 beats 2 or 3.
28: Bracing a piece of wood against his upper thighs, hammering the chisel *towards* his crotch (yes, Darwin Award material). Chisel slips, nearly cuts one of the buttons in half, and leaves a nice bruise in the shape of the back of the button.
Men can't really pull off the mom jeans look, because they don't have hips to hold them that high. Mom jeans button near the navel. Most men would need suspenders to get jeans to hang at that level.
I think I first heard "mom" used adjectively to deprecate someone's clothes in an article about going shopping with Keith Richards' daughters, who were highschool age at the time (so it must have been sometime in the early 2000s). I have no idea what magazine it was in or why I read it. It was probably at the dentist's office or something.
One of the ridiculously privileged, stuck-up daughters chided the other with something along the lines of "you can't wear that, that's such a mom dress". Anyway I found the phrase obnoxious then, and anyone I heard using it would certainly not be welcome on my lawn.
As for me, I still get mildly amused whenever I see the "Lucky" written on the inside fly of my jeans.
I feel like Stuart Smalley: "I am lucky!"
That's okay, you totally have a mom lawn anyway.
You'd better stay off my mom and my lawn, apo.
37: m/tch wears rocks mom jeans.
There, fixed that for you.
35: Heh. I, on the other hand, still get amused when I am reminded of the partner at my firm who proudly showed off that "Lucky" label over a few beers.
34: It'd bother me as a general term of denigration -- "Mom" clothes are those that are insufficiently stylish. "Mom jeans" is sort of in the category of "wifebeater" for me -- the name's offensive, but it does point at something specific that needs a name.
40 was me, obviously. Partners at other firms don't behave that way.
42: What was Will doing at your law firm, and how did the partner induce Will to, um, perform?
Or maybe it was just Will's pants that were in attendance? Perhaps they were a trophy of some sort for the partner involved?
Maybe "swimming lessons" were involved?
lurkers are emailing me with requests to show them how to snap their hips.
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.
46: Will was not present. The partner in question, however, was clearly most pleased to have gotten into said pants.
"wifebeater" . . . the name's offensive, but it does point at something specific that needs a name
No problem -- just call it a guinea tee.
Perhaps it would be more respectful to refer to those pants as "mother jeans".
52: Whatchyou talkin' 'bout, Standpipe?
54: No, I wasn't talking about Standpipe, I was talking about you, Sir Kraut. Duh.
I don't think it's just "unstylish appearance" that makes the word "mom" get used. It's the particular sort of loose, billowing-ness, suitable for lounging around the house. I very rarely see men in pants like that.
55: Oh, go stick it in your ear, L/mey.
Speaking seriously for a moment, why can't we have higher-cut jeans which are not Mom jeans. And in general, why are all trousers so low waisted? I think that some of the classic trousers were fitted higher up, and they were fashionable in their day.
I very rarely see men in pants like that.
Because they don't make them for men any more. If they did, you would. But you don't get to choose what you wear; you wear what the manufacturers choose to make.
That's capitalism.
"It's the particular sort of loose, billowing-ness, suitable for lounging around the house. I very rarely see men in pants like that."
Hammertime?
58: They can charge the same price for something that contains less fabric.
I find it interesting that while for once we have a president who is actually good-looking (and for all my disappointment over most of his policies I've got to hand him that) we've decided to hold him to much, much higher fashion standards than any other male high official elected in my lifetime. I think race plays into this somehow. I mean seriously, when I think "style icon" I do not generally think President of the United States, nor do I particularly want to.
On mom jeans: I am trying really, really hard to stop using "mom" as a negative, both because I have many friends who are now moms and because it's sexist and gross. "Ugly jeans" works just fine. (My own particular mother, who really truly does not care about fashion, still has a pair of acid washed, tapered, pleated jeans that I bought in desperation in the late eighties as a 14-year-old fat girl. Even I knew they were hideous when I bought them--they're not the sort of acid-washed that is being revived now, for example. But she didn't want them to go to waste!)
Hammerpants are slippery, aren't they? Obama's look sort of like corduroys.
And in general, why are all trousers so low waisted?
Less cloth, cheaper to make. Only a couple of cents a pair? Adds up when you order by the tens of thousands.
63: I think the defining characteristic of Hammerpants is the crotch is at the knee.
That's capitalism.
The flip side, of course, is that the capitalists need to install different fashions every so often so that you have to replace the things you already own. So just sit...erm...tight, BG, and high waists will eventually come back into fashion, at which point you can stock up enough surplus to see you through the next fashion cycle.
Also, the prevalence of low-waisted jeans has all but erased the taboo aspect of visible underwear, so you can relax about that in the meantime. Though you might have to upgrade your underwear.
Less cloth doesnt make them less expensive. Just ask the makers of $500 shorts.
They are making higher-waisted jeans these days! The low-waisted trend is over!
they were fashionable in their day.
But the important thing is I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.
I am trying really, really hard to stop using "mom" as a negative, both because I have many friends who are now moms and because it's sexist and gross.
There are also "dad jeans", and they are equally cringeworthy--or even more so, because the dads are trying to hide/contain their bulging midsections, which is harder for a pair of jeans to accommodate than a bulging ass or thighs.
Less cloth doesnt make them less expensive. Just ask the makers of $500 shorts.
Oh, you're just being Willfully obtuse.
It's the particular sort of loose, billowing-ness, suitable for lounging around the house.
At this very moment, I am wearing oversized pleated men's pants that I have cropped to the ankle, very YSL Broadway collection of 1977. And they look great, thank you, even though they're actually gray Dockers.
Tonight I plan to go to an excessively fashionable queer club night whose theme (this month) is science fiction. I will wear a sort of odd black eighties henley tucked into billowy men's pleated black pants so as to give the illusion of a jumpsuit. Plus my alternate late-seventies futuristic glasses.
Billowy pants and high waists are coming back. Give it another six months and they'll be available for popular purchase.
Less cloth doesnt make them less expensive.
Less expensive to them, not to you. Profit margin?
(Anybody who pays $500 for a pair of shorts has forfeited any right to sympathy.)
O's jeans don't look like mom jeans to me. They look like they're cut like "climbing pants," which are hideous but beloved by dudes who would like the mom-jeans room around the butt but want an athletic-sounding excuse to wear them for pretty much everything.
"Oh these? They're climbing pants! The roominess is really helpful when you're bouldering."
"But we are having dinner, not bouldering."
"I might need to boulder. You never know."
Though you might have to upgrade your underwear.
Clear evidence that Big Pants is in cahoots with Big Underwear.
They are making higher-waisted jeans these days! The low-waisted trend is over!
Any progress on that sheer blouse / no bra look I've been holding out for, fashion observers?
56: It's not the lounging aspect; it's the trading comfort for coolness aspect. (And/or being too clueless to know what's cool.) Thus the pleats LB mentioned or a hidden elastic waist. For billowy lounging, real moms wear mumus.
"Ugly jeans" works just fine.
Not the same thing, though. Mom jeans are a specific subset of ugly jeans, like squares and rectangles.
For billowy lounging, real moms wear mumus slankets.
m/tch never say "big underwear" when speaking about any ladiez undergarments.
58: My hypothesis is that the primary goal of the fashion industry is to make people feel bad about their appearance and then sell them overpriced crap to help them feel better. Low rise jeans can look stunning on a 19 year old woman with 5% bodyfat, but on nearly everyone else they look bad, and the wearer subconsciously knows this. There's a reason the fashion industry standard for female beauty is a prepubescent boy with mastitis - real women can never attain the standard, but at least they can buy the clothes.
Keeping the ball moving with constant shifts in what's "in" is just another way to manipulate people into buying stuff.
Incidentally, there appears to be a trend towards a type of skirt with a broad elastic waist and thick billowy fabric gathered at the hem. Nobody looks good in these things. They make your hips look lumpy and your ass look huge, except in those cases where they make your ass look flat as a board.
80: Yes, the proper term is gigantipanties.
Wikipedia informs me of the following alternatives to the vile "wifebeater":
A-shirt: short for "athletic shirt"
"Diego tee" (for a fun variation on "guinea tee"; highly recommended for your next stroll through the barrio)
British term (so Wikipedia claims): vest
Scottish: semmit
Australia: singlet
India and the Philippines: sando
I'm lobbying for "singlet," myself.
78: Implicit in this is the idea, obvs, that "mom" is a category for all that is stupid, boring, un-self-aware, etc. And that cleverness, interest and awareness are best represented by dressing fancy. And that being a mom is kind of gross and stupid, which sort of contradicts the "women must have children or they are unloving harpies! And tragically incomplete!" thing.
That the meaning is "mom=naive and stupid" can be seen by the spread of the term "mom jeans" away from jeans worn by actual moms--"mom" is an insult in these contexts.
I was thinking about this the other day--one of my younger friends compared something I said to something that his mother says, and it really bothered me. Then I felt bad, because his mother seems like an interesting, unusually capable person with an off-beat career and there's no shame in being compared to her--except the cultural shame of being compared to an older woman.
62: I find it interesting that while for once we have a president who is actually good-looking (and for all my disappointment over most of his policies I've got to hand him that) we've decided to hold him to much, much higher fashion standards than any other male high official elected in my lifetime.
I think this is quite reasonable, actually. You've got a stunningly good-looking guy for President: he should have to dress up nice, let you show him off to other countries whose elected despots aren't nearly so good-looking.
a type of skirt with a broad elastic waist and thick billowy fabric gathered at the hem
Hm. This is the only kind of skirt that looks good on me. No elastic waist, but a broad waistband and a heavily pleated skirt billowing out from that? If the fabric is stiff enough, it looks quite princessy. Maybe we are thinking of different skirts.
m/tch never say "big underwear" when speaking about any ladiez undergarments.
Less expensive to them, not to you. Profit margin?
It's not a cost saver really. You can tell this because really cheap jeans don't scrimp on the denim material so much as the zippers, fixtures, and sewing. T
he waistlines are low because that's the fashion. It will change again.
81: Have you been sneaking into women's studies classes again?
78: Implicit in this is the idea, obvs, that "mom" is a category for all that is stupid, boring, un-self-aware, etc. And that cleverness, interest and awareness are best represented by dressing fancy. And that being a mom is kind of gross and stupid, which sort of contradicts the "women must have children or they are unloving harpies! And tragically incomplete!" thing.
Or...implicit in this idea is that after becoming moms, women put less of a priority on fashion and more of a priority on comfort. But, you can attribute whatever motives to people you want.
84: I like being auntillary, but I would find it mostly objectionable to be momlike. I don't want to be someone's mom, but I don't mind at all being their aunt, actual or adopted or just filling an aunt-like role in their life (source of good advice, cake, and encouragement to annoy their parents).
Clothes make me happy that I'm a man. Both because low-rise jeans really do look good in 19 year olds with 5% body fat and because I've worn pretty much the same thing for the past 10 years and will be able to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Have you been sneaking into women's studies classes again?
He was trying to see butt cracks.
When butt crack is visibly displayed in my house, everyone shouts "Crack is bad!!" and then we dance.
Implicit in this is the idea, obvs, that "mom" is a category for all that is stupid, boring, un-self-aware, etc.
Surely there is a more charitable reading of this. I expect most of us have witnessed friends whose typical wardrobes, after becoming a mom, took a serious turn to the low maintenance and practical. These things are almost antethical to fashion, after all. So as a category it can be read as "cares more about practicality, economy, low maintenance than about aesthetics or current fashion"
Which isn't the same as stupid, boring, un-selfaware.
90: Surely we don't have to argue that "mom jeans" is an insult, and that it doesn't mean merely "those are some stupid jeans" or "gee, I completely understand that parents don't put as much effort into their appearance as single folks and that's okay".
And surely we don't have to argue that "mom" is a much more vexed category than "dad"? I can't believe that Unfogged's particular collection of policy wonks, lawyers and theory types hasn't encountered that idea before.
Being a parent often means having grubby hand prints on your shirts or the gooey remains from messy mouths on your suit jackets.
Also, you dont have time to get dressed or worry about things like linen so you often do look messy or grubby.
Implicit in this is the idea, obvs, that "mom" is a category for all that is stupid, boring, un-self-aware
This isn't so obvs to me. "Unfashionable," perhaps, but I don't see where the rest of it comes in, anymore than it does for grandpa slacks.
Pwned, but added value points for the grandpa slacks reference, I hope.
96: No, really, have you ever listened to the fashionable and the hip talk about "mom" in the abstract? I spend a horribly high percentage of time with young fashionable people and although I can only ever provide anecdata, folks aren't saying "yeah, moms wear those mom jeans because they're busy, bless 'em for their hard work"; folks are saying "ew, mom jeans!", "god, I hope I don't look like my mother when I'm fifty", etc.
There's a difference between saying "well, she has two little kids so she doesn't have the time or money to dress up" and "OMG she used to be so fashionable but now she wears mom jeans!"
Surely we don't have to argue that "mom jeans" is an insult
It's more an issue that the insult (and it's is an insult) is along the lines of "those clothes are dorky"
I've heard "dad shorts" used the same way, fwiw, but it doesn't have the same prevalence. Also "old man x", or "grandpa x" applied to clothing, I think meaning terminally out of fashion.
As 97 points out, there are perfectly good reasons for avoiding dry clean only, etc. with (especially small) kids around.
And surely we don't have to argue that "mom" is a much more vexed category than "dad"?
We're talking about clothing here. I would say moms and dads are tied in terms of stereotypical clothing associations.
And surely we don't have to argue that "mom" is a much more vexed category than "dad"? I can't believe that Unfogged's particular collection of policy wonks, lawyers and theory types hasn't encountered that idea before.
It depends on the topic. In the context of parenting, the word "mom" is often assumed to imply a much higher parenting skill than "dad."
(Much to my irritation.)
86: The skirt I'm thinking of is made of the type of fabric commonly used for T-shirts. A lighter and stiffer fabric can look absolutely great. I'm a fan of skirts in general, but the combination of design and fabric for the skirt I'm thinking of is a perfect storm of horribleness.
I agree with Cryptic. In fashion, mom and dad are code for old as dirt.
Implicit in this is the idea, obvs, that "mom" is a category for all that is stupid, boring, un-self-aware, etc.
In the case of mom jeans, I thought it just meant that "mom" has a big ass.
100: The point, in short, isn't the jeans and their simplicity, elastic waists (which are also due for a comeback) or whatever; the point is the value that people put on them.
I don't particularly care what others wear but I don't like this business of "oh, that's so ugly, it's what a mom would wear."
Frowner, yes I've heard the attempts of the young and fashionable to reject the older and unfashionable. But I don't have the sense that it is nearly as narrowly targeted as you do.
"OMG she used to be so fashionable but now she wears mom jeans!"
The thing you have to understand is that for the young and fashionable, this is a travesty. It is, after all, representing the end of life as they know it.
102, 105: At this point, it makes sense to circle back to the original post -- Obama's jeans are being called 'mom jeans', despite the fact that they're not great exemplars of the type, to make it clear that they're ugly. 'Dad jeans' wouldn't make the same point.
Through its "LVC" line, Levi's still sells, at rather high prices, old-fashioned 501s in various models (predominantly from the '30s and '50s, but some from the 1890s, too): selvedge denim from the old, now-uneconomical machines, crotch rivets, etc.
'Dad jeans' wouldn't make the same point.
Yeah, but "dad shorts" would, in my experience.
So I'm not sure why the connections are drawn the way they are.
OK, but people are just as mean, if not meaner, about moms who maintain a devotion to fashion and fitness, like they can't possibly take care of their kids because they're still too image-conscious. The magic of baby-making never took hold, and here they are daring to care what they look like in public! Moms really can't win on this one, I'm afraid.
I imagine this is why "mommy-blogging" (I hate the term) is such a phenomenon. All these people trying to negotiate what it means to become a mother, whether it means giving up the right to be public in any meaningful sense, or whether trudging around Wal*Mart with spit-up on your shirt is an avoidable fate. Suddenly you go from being someone who is largely in control of what you look like and how you behave in public, and now you're the one whose kid is crying and who doesn't have time or money enough to maintain "proper" public feminine appearances. It's an unwinnable game, and I'm pleased to see there's so much dialogue online between real moms about this stuff. What parts of my public self are important to me to maintain? What aspects of the humiliations of life do we just need to all calm the fuck down about? It's a fascinating conversation.
111: Huh. I was thinking of going into "dad shorts" (madras, right?), but I'm not sure what to do with them.
111: The 'dad shorts' dig seems pretty clear to me. Your average 35+ year-old white male office worker has horrible legs. At least I do.
109: Also, I think, as a gendered insult, and I suspect that it ties in to people's greater willingness to...to, I don't know, speak really casually of Obama, which is where I think race fits in somewhere. Now, I pretty much ignored every personal detail about Bush because his voice and affect made me want to hurt people, but I can't see anyone saying that he wore "mom jeans" even if he were wearing the same kind of jeans Obama wore. People seem to be much freer with comments on the Obamas' physicality than they were even with the Clintons. I'm just making this up, but I have noticed over my life time that white folks feel fairly free to comment on the bodies of people of color in ways that they generally don't with fellow white people.
Resolved: Obama should have worn dad shorts to throw the pitch. Then this stereotypically gay fashion analyst on CNN would only be engaged in ageism, not sexism.
Anyway, I got a look at myself in the mirror and I now won't wear shorts unless I'm working-out or puttering.
"Dad jokes". The kind of obvious puns that trigger no approval unless someone is listening for signs of reproductive fitness. It was explained to me recently that this was the category of humor in which I was most successful.
Nah, it's not about the hideousness of the person in the shorts, it's about a particular style of shorts -- non-athletic, so with belt loops and pockets and such, probably plaid. Like, I could imagine 'dad shorts' coming into style for men, and still having that name.
Moms really can't win on this one, I'm afraid.
This I agree with, AWB. Moms really do get it coming and going here, and I'd never argue that people aren't, on average, too judgemental of mothers choices in this society.
However, I don't think "mom jeans" has to carry all that weight.
I suspect the the prevalence (not exclusivity) of gendering these things towards moms rather than dads is more a reflection of the general social emphasis on clothes being shifted that way than any reflection of more nefarious meaning.
People seem to be much freer with comments on the Obamas' physicality than they were even with the Clintons. I'm just making this up, but I have noticed over my life time that white folks feel fairly free to comment on the bodies of people of color in ways that they generally don't with fellow white people.
Regular commenter "Frowner" suggested a less sinister explanation for this in #62.
120: You just described my shorts for puttering.
123: With some black socks, then, you're good to go.
Frowner and Mitch at 34.2 get it exactly right. I have never heard "mom" clothes referred to except as a pejorative.
On a related note, I'm surprised not to have seen one of the many Michelle Obama fashion blogs linked here before. If I let myself think about it, I feel really sad about how thoroughly she has been relegated to a Laura Bush/play-it-safe model of First Ladyhood, but she certainly handles it superbly.
even if he were wearing the same kind of jeans Obama wore
Bush looked pretty good in jeans, to be honest.
104: Ah yes, that one. Yeah, it looks bad. I have one skirt made of T-shirty stuff, but it's not billowy, and I wear it as the super-lazy equivalent of sweatpants, to the post office, etc.
Guys seem to worry about female ass size in a way that I've never learned to. My dad used to comment on how big my ass looked in skirts. (I know, weird.) And a guy friend of mine recently told me that I should wear jeans more often because I have a great ass and he'd never seen it before. When I dress up, it usually means I'm wearing things that sort of obscure my ass or make it look huge, I guess. But I still *feel* much prettier in a skirt. And isn't it all about me anyway?
116: I seem to recall the '90s being rather replete with conversations about the bodies of the Clintons, from the unflattering jogging shorts worn by one to the turtleneck worn by the other in Vogue, and such conversations were not bereft of the language of judgment.
83: vest is indeed British for a wifebeater. So is "singlet" though it's a bit antique now. What Americans call a vest, we call a waistcoat, I think.
114: Yeah, it's not about the legs. It's about (at least at the moment) terribly out of fashion shorts. LB is right about at least one incarnation, although I've also heard it applied to too-short, non-athletic, out of fashion shorts.
Your average middle age office workers legs look equally bad in the latest fashion, I'm sure.
I have never heard "mom" clothes referred to except as a pejorative.
Oh, it's perjorative all right, but about the clothes, not the people, I think.
128: Of course, it's one of those things that's hard to focus on for yourself -- I have no idea what my ass looks like in most things I wear, because I don't have a three-way mirror at home.
As 97 points out, there are perfectly good reasons for avoiding dry clean only, etc. with (especially small) kids around.
I don't think anyone's arguing that there aren't. What's at issue is whether "mom" is just being used as a descriptor of things that moms typically wear, or whether it's being used as a more general purpose negative term for things that don't live up to the "whatever the practical issues, all women must look beautiful and fashionable at all times" code.
I'm with Frowner here. Whenever I've heard "mom [clothing item]" in the wild, it's clearly being used in a pejorative way that to my ear is much meaner than "dad shorts". Often it's teenage girls or young women saying it. And it's not like it's a level playing field anyway in terms of the standards men and women are held to. It's fine and natural, for example, for the King of Queens to be schlumpy, but of course his wife has to be hott.
"People seem to be much freer with comments on the Obamas' physicality than they were even with the Clintons."
This does not fit with my memory. I remember lots of comments on Bill's weight, tendency to eat crap, and pasty white legs in too-short shorts. I don't think I need to go into all of the crap about Hillary on this matter.
Any progress on that sheer blouse / no bra look I've been holding out for, fashion observers?
Oddly, yes. Fall 09 runway shows featured a lot of transparency. I'm not sure what's going to end up on the street, though.
124: Black socks and sneakers.
To really complete the look, wear those socks with sandals.
69: But I still really like the clothes from the 30's and 40's. I think that Catherine Hepburn looked fabulous.
Laura Bush had awful taste in clothes, but it was all "appropriate" so people just shied away from discussing it.
If I let myself think about it, I feel really sad about how thoroughly she has been relegated to a Laura Bush/play-it-safe model of First Ladyhood, but she certainly handles it superbly.
I dunno -- what more should she be doing? It'd be great if she could just have a job unrelated to government, but I do have a certain sympathy for the idea that she's not an elected official, and shouldn't act like one.
122: Maybe I'm being even crabbier and more earnest than usual, but I don't see how I find it interesting that while for once we have a president who is actually good-looking (and for all my disappointment over most of his policies I've got to hand him that) we've decided to hold him to much, much higher fashion standards than any other male high official elected in my lifetime. I think race plays into this somehow contradicts the later part.
Again, I haven't been paying a super huge amount of attention to previous presidents because I've loathed them all much more than I loathe Obama, so it's possible that lots and lots of centrist white folks felt free to discuss the social significance of Barbara Bush's ass (as Salon did with Michelle Obama's); that New York magazine kept a daily look-book of Laura Bush's wardrobe; that people were extraordinarily free in speculating in major media outlets on the sex lives of Ron and Nancy, etc etc, that pictures of Bill or Hillary or Ron were used in an incredible and creepy range of branding and advertising, etc. Maybe I just didn't notice. My impression was that although some media (including the Utne Reader) said extraordinarily cruel and inappropriate things about Chelsea Clinton, none really approached in sexual explicitness the recent comments about the elder Obama girl. But that's just my impression.
being used in a pejorative way that to my ear
So the last bit is doing the work; it sounds to me like we're all covering the same ground, but reading the stresses differently.
Or maybe this just boils down to agreement that fashion expectations sure suck more for women than men, in general.
none really approached in sexual explicitness the recent comments about the elder Obama girl. B
I missed this, and now want to murder people. Who should I be murdering?
143: Yeah, what the hell? Aren't the daughters like 7 and 9, for Christ's Christing sake?
The other thing about the Michelle-Obama-Clotheshorse fascination is that it's served as a wonderful distraction from the Michelle-Obama-Is-A-Radical fascination. Who the hell knows what she's been up to? But we *do* know that she likes J. Crew and Thakoon--decisions that probably take no more than 2% of her conscious attention.
143/144: wow. yes. I haven't run into any of that, but wtf?
I'm with Frowner as well.
133: it's being used as a more general purpose negative term for things that don't live up to the "whatever the practical issues, all women must look beautiful and fashionable at all times" code.
There's a close race between moms and old ladies being the obvious choice for a group of women who abjure that code, I would think. Also feminists (in the popular, caricatured imagination).
My roommate in high school had a 22" waist, but her hips were much wider than mine. ( She didn't look scrawny or anything. She had to get everything altered and cinched up her jeans big time.
Your average middle age office workers legs look
Bicyclists, yo. My legs look great and I'm damn sure middle-aged. Many of my colleagues are hotties. I am wearing shorts with belt loops. If I was more with-it I would try for rhymes on this, but I know I'd be outclassed here.
lots of centrist white folks felt free to discuss the social significance of Barbara Bush's ass
Hillary Clinton's ass. Barbara Bush's neck.
speculating in major media outlets on the sex lives of Ron and Nancy
Too old for it. But surely the Obama's sex lives haven't gotten 1/100 the attention that the Clintons did.
There's a close race between moms and old ladies being the obvious choice for a group of women who abjure that code
Some moms and some old ladies sure, but probably not even a majority.
143: Oh, just some disgusting comments that got a lot of play at Free Republic, discussed here. But specially vitriolic and public.
Bicyclists, yo.
Hardly represent the average middle age office worker.
Who should I be murdering?
Oh, just the normal mouthbreathers at Free Republic. It was over this outfit.
Oh, it's perjorative all right, but about the clothes, not the people, I think.
You don't think it casts moms as a class in a certain way, similar, for example, to the way "that's so gay!" casts homosexuals as a class?
150: Barbara Bush drew lots of jokes about looking like George (HW) Bush's mother. There was widespread speculation that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Frank Sinatra.
Of course, all of this stuff is worse now. I blame the internet.
Hillary Clinton's ass. Barbara Bush's neck frozen, staring, supposedly-medicated Jokeresque rictus of shame denied.
Fixed.
157: That would be Laura Bush, Flippanter.
I dunno -- what more should she be doing? It'd be great if she could just have a job unrelated to government, but I do have a certain sympathy for the idea that she's not an elected official, and shouldn't act like one.
Well, first, a caveat: I only know what I've seen of her work in extremely mainstream coverage, so I've seen her visiting a homeless shelter and being photographed with Carla Bruni and generally being an ambassador abroad. Maybe she's doing a lot of other stuff that I don't know about, and heaven knows there's not a single thing that she's done that I disagree with. It's all harmless-to-excellent, as far as I can tell. Oh, and the White House garden. That's not a bad thing at all.
But here's the thing: Every single thing she's done is incredibly, unbelievably safe. (And even then she still gets massively criticized! So I'm not second-guessing her political handlers' judgment.) She's not an elected official, but she's quite a lot like a celebrity. Angelina Jolie and George Clooney advocate; in theory, she could too.
She could be barnstorming the country with Bill Gates talking about public health or educational alternatives. She could be visiting a parade of refugee-resettlement agencies drawing attention to the recent report on the painful adjustment process of the Iraqi refugees who helped the US government, and encouraging people to contribute time and energy to helping refugees in their own communities. She could be doing ads with the Census Bureau trying to convince people to turn out and respond to Census 2010, since there's already plenty of ugly propaganda (from both sides) about not participating.
But those are acts of advocacy, and there is a really narrow realm of acceptable advocacy for American First Ladies. So as I said, it makes me sad.
150: The thing is, the Clintons' sex lives got a lot of discussion because there were plausible allegations of infidelity. The Obamas--a lot of speculation just 'cause. Part of it is that media culture is different, of course, but I find it implausible that this isn't related to race, what with that whole "first black president" thing.
Again, part of it is personal observation--I know a lot of white folks who think that speculating about folks' of color's bodies, hair, sexuality and fashion sense, as long as it's "oooh, that's so neat!", is completely okay, and I feel like that's part of what's going on with the Obamas.
And Barbara Bush's neck--well, I think there's a greater degree of informality involved in commenting on a woman's ass than on her neck.
You don't think it casts moms as a class in a certain way, similar, for example, to the way "that's so gay!" casts homosexuals as a class?
No, I really don't. Maybe I just have a tin ear for it.
I think it really is primarily about the utilitarian clothes, not the people wearing them, and also primarily (certainly not exclusively) exuded by teen age girls as a natural form of (playing with) rejecting their parents.
I do find it interesting that women in this situation get social censure for basically relaxing their fashion standards to ones perfectly accepted for men, but I think that's a separable thing.
158: Damn. Freudian slip -- I confuse them all the time.
Oh, just the normal mouthbreathers at Free Republic.
Ah, that's not so bad then, in the sense that those people would have to work really hard to make me think any less of them than I already do.
I think it really is primarily about the utilitarian clothes,
Thing is, 'mom jeans' really aren't utilitarian, just ugly. The 'mom' fashion image isn't so much a slob, as someone who carefully and deliberately selects clothes that are for some reason contemptible -- holiday themed sweatshirts and such.
"holiday themed sweatshirts"
Those are out now? Crap.
159: I suppose you could view staying out of the limelight and leading as ordinary a life as possible as a form of advocacy, too.
Thing is, 'mom jeans' really aren't utilitarian, just ugly.
You have to work pretty hard (and lots of people do) to make any jeans "not utilitarian". And I'm certainly not thinking of a slob, here (wouldn't that involve more sweatpants in the caricature?). There are class issues at play here too, I think.
average middle age office worker
I am feeling uncharacteristically positive about humanity today. I try not to think of my fellow humans as schmoes-- many of the jocks are a drag to talk to, but there are many of them; in this building at least, there are lots of people who look great, some who dress well, some who don't.
I just spent last weekend plus a couple of days in Manhattan, and was struck by how great people on the streets looked, and by how wondrous functioning big cities are. It's an old analogy, but I kept thinking about a living cell. Anyway, few schmoes there too. For whatever reason, not that interested in poking at what's wrong with people today-- probably I'm in the wrong place.
The difference between 'mom jeans' and non-'mom jeans' isn't that the mom-jeans are more utilitarian, it's that they're uglier, was my point.
She could be doing ads with the Census Bureau trying to convince people to turn out and respond to Census 2010
I went to a conference on data the other day where there was this awesome Latino guy with a thick accent in a beautiful suit from the Census. He did a workshop on how you can use their website.
He was talking about a lot of their efforts to reach out to different communities and the centers where they can do it. It's interesting.
Did you know that the Census has to locate its offices a certain distance from other Federal offices, because they don't want people--especially undocumented immigrants--to be afraid to go into them? It takes them a long time to find offices.
I also found out that the Portuguese-speaking community is annoyed about some stuff and pretty afraid of the census, since ICE switched to home-based raids. I guess that there are sheets in 61 languages, but the directions on th eactual form only come in English and Spanish, and in Massachusetts, Portuguese is the Number 2 language, not Spanish. But a ton of jobs (because of the old count) requires and gets funding for Spanish speakers, but not for Portuguese.
169: The bike commute is doing this to me -- all sorts of wonderful different people in different clothes, on bikes or roller blades or pushing jogging strollers, going about their lives. People on the subway had kind of disappeared for me: I was putting headphones on and tatting and spending the commute completely in my own head.
171: "Latino guy with a thick accent in a beautiful suit from the Census."
I get my suits from Botony 500.
The Obamas--a lot of speculation just 'cause
Just cause they're young and attractive. If John and Jackie Kennedy were in the White House today instead of forty years ago, it would be the same.
informality involved in commenting on a woman's ass than on her neck
This is an age issue, not a race issue. There were reams of commentary on HRC's ass, and Elizabeth Edwards would have gotten the same treatment. Now imagine the press on a First Lady Kucinich.
it's that they're uglier, was my point.
Ok, but it's not so much "uglier" as out of fashion, isn't it? Or at best, without much concern for fashion. Which is, to me, a characteristic of utilitarian. I suppose there is a difference between wearing something that is definitely out of fashion, and something that has never been in fashion, but that's a pretty blurry line.
In any case I don't see how "mom jeans" == "those jeans are ugly" counteracts my reading of this as primarily a complaint about the clothes.
I am feeling uncharacteristically positive about humanity today.
I should note, the "average middle age office workers legs" thing was someone else's example, I wasn't making any claim about it at all.
No, I really don't. Maybe I just have a tin ear for it.
I hear "dad shorts" used in an "aren't dads dorky and funny" way. When I've heard "mom" used as a pejorative, it's with a much more noticeable sense of disgust and sneering.
To me it's quite obviously redolent of the idea that dads, and men generally, are just kind of expected to become unhip and dorky. It's kind of amusing, and can even be adorable. But women who give up on or somehow don't achieve looking fashionable, even if it's for perfectly understandable reasons of raising children, holding down a job, etc., get slapped with "ewwww, you look like a mom!". I really don't think it's just about rejecting one's parents.
I hear "dad shorts" used in an "aren't dads dorky and funny" way. When I've heard "mom" used as a pejorative, it's with a much more noticeable sense of disgust and sneering.
So this is where we are disagreeing. C'est la vie.
Now imagine the press on a First Lady Kucinich.
Gladly.
In case it's not clear, M/tch, I meant 179 in the sense of recognizing selection bias.
176, 178: The difference in tone I'm seeing is "Dad shorts" means "You're wearing dorky clothes". "Mom jeans" means "You're wearing clothes that demonstrate that you're no longer sexually attractive, which means that you're an embarrassment." Mζtch gets it.
well 179 to 182 also then.
Although I'm perfectly willing to believe I may have a tin ear to this, as noted. I usually seem to pick up on these things though, or that's the sense that others have given me, so I don't know.
176, 178: The difference in tone I'm seeing is "Dad shorts" means "You're wearing dorky clothes". "Mom jeans" means "You're wearing clothes that demonstrate that you're no longer sexually attractive, which means that you're an embarrassment."
The stereotype of "dad", when combined with "dorky", doesn't imply that he's no longer sexually attractive?
Thing is, 'mom jeans' really aren't utilitarian, just ugly. The 'mom' fashion image isn't so much a slob, as someone who carefully and deliberately selects clothes that are for some reason contemptible -- holiday themed sweatshirts and such.
But the very jeans that inspired this discussion, the ones worn by Obama, are not ugly - they're utilitarian.
165: The 'mom' fashion image isn't so much a slob, as someone who carefully and deliberately selects clothes that are for some reason contemptible
"for some reason" would be the key there, wouldn't it? Holiday-themed sweaters are considered lower-class; I'm not sure whether so-called mom jeans are. In any case, I can't get a handle on what it means to say that certain clothes are simply ugly -- fashion and aesthetic sense in general changes, bigger asses used to be looked on with favor, sparklies on your shirt were once all the rage, and so on.
doesn't imply that he's no longer sexually attractive?
And embarrassingly so, at that.
The stereotype of "dad", when combined with "dorky", doesn't imply that he's no longer sexually attractive?
No longer sexy, but in an endearing, acceptable way.
Versus, for "mom", no longer sexy in a way ranging from just sad to completely repulsive.
184: The stereotype of "dad", when combined with "dorky", doesn't imply that he's no longer sexually attractive?
Maybe, if the question came up, but for a man the question doesn't necessarily come up. A "dad"/middle-aged man can be going about his business, well or badly dressed, and his sexual appeal isn't a necessary part of what his clothes say about him.
For a woman, on the other hand, clothes that don't make you sexually appealing are a problem -- there's no such thing as being well dressed unless you look hot.
Holiday-themed sweaters are considered lower-class
Huh?
Speaking of moms, what's the deal with the "discovered by a mom" trope in advertising? Tooth whitening secret—discovered by a mom! Weight loss secret—discovered by a mom! You may not be sexually attractive anymore, mom, but you sure are good at discovering stuff.
No longer sexy, but in an endearing, acceptable way.
I suppose that's why you hear the 13 year old girls[*] lamenting the possibility of being seen with their dads because it would be so embarrassing the way he is dressed.
[*] this does skew heavily, doesn't it?
189: You don't think they are so considered? I thought so.
190: I especially like how they slide a "in [your town]" there by sneakily looking up your IP address and guessing.
Discovered by a Mom!!!! Near you!!!!11!!
192: There are absolutely class issues at work here, yes.
192: Classist.
But no, there are definitely expensive holiday themed sweaters that wealthy matrons can be seen about town in. Is it in Bridget Jone's Diary where there's the thing about the Christmas sweaters? I definitely didn't see that as a marker that her family was lower-class. More like solidly middle-class in taste, i.e. unfashionable.
lamenting the possibility of being seen with their dads because it would be so embarrassing the way he is dressed
To a first approximation, it is always a mistake for any male old enough to have visible hair on his legs to wear shorts at any time, except with the intention of walking into the ocean.
195: Yes, but in that case it is posh Mark Darcy's posh mom who buys them for him.
I apparently hang around with only unfashionable people. I don't think that I know any women whose clothing style changed at all after having kids.
Ok, people. Here is the standard stereotype for "Mom" jeans: elastic waistband, pleated front, roomy thighs, narrowed ankle. They are sold as comfortable and decent.
The elastic waistband necessitates a higher cut, and yes, this will sometimes have the effect of flattening your ass. The pleated front will create a poochy stomach even if you don't have one; this cut seems like a throw-back to some of the cute styles of the 70s and 80s (themselves I believe a throwback to the 40s), but it doesn't translate well to denim. The thigh and ankle thing have a similar origin--but I suspect that the tapered leg is supposed to be flattering.
LL Bean will sell you a nice "Mom" jean lined with flannel; they look fabulous on the models, of course. It's just a bit old-fashioned, that's all. I very much doubt that 30-40 year-old mothers are wearing them these days.
The stereotype goes along with the "Mom" haircut from the 70s and 80s: that short feathered do that I believe the mom from the Brady bunch had and that every mother in my neighborhood had.
195: Yeah, on reflection, it might be more middle class than simply lower class. Still, in poor or questionable taste, as you say, which I gather LB wants to say means objectively ugly.
199: They just went right on wearing their maternity clothes? That's strange.
Also, both the high-waisted, tapered-leg jean and the oversized printed sweater are making a high-fashion comeback. It's not even ironic: it's two steps beyond sarcastic, at least.
203: Shoot. Do you think Goodwill has unloaded the truck already?
203: The high-waisted jean has been "making a comeback" for a more than a year at least. Do a search for "mom jeans" on Go Fug Yourself, and you'll be presented with a variety of today's starlets with their jeans starting well above their navels.
Jeans so immensely tapered that they need zippers on the ankles have also been popular with my students for the past year or so, particularly the guys.
They just went right on wearing their maternity clothes? That's strange.
Hey, clothes are expensive. You can't just wear them for 4 months.
Just last night, my sister and I were just discussing the resurgence of mom-jeans-plus-print-sweatshirt-or-gaudy-sweater among theater-goers.
Going to a party on Saturday with a dress-like-you're-sixteen theme. For me that will be simple, as I still dress all in black with black boots a lot of the time. And I scowl.
Does this mean I should ebay my circa 1984 big, neon, boxy Benneton sweaters?
To a first approximation, it is always a mistake for any male old enough to have visible hair on his legs to wear shorts at any time, except with the intention of walking into the ocean.
For heaven's sake, why? I'm familiar with all the body-shaming stuff that women go through, but I truly do not understand this.
Of course, I realize that I don't even have an image of the ideal male leg in my mind for comparison, so all available legs look pretty much equal to me.
Plus, what's wrong with having hairy legs? Again, I don't understand. And what's wrong with being pale? (Which seems to go along with leg anxiety for many men.)
I think it would be more commented upon if O wore super-cool $300-dollar skinny-boy jeans.
Oh, God. I don't want to see any Obama muffintop.
205: "Jeans so immensely tapered that they need zippers on the ankles have also been popular with my students for the past year or so, particularly the guys."
Seriously? I haven't seen that in at least ten years.
208: If you post the ebay link once they're up, why then of course! I'm looking for boxy retro sweaters. Although now that the nineties are galloping back into fashion I'm also looking for vintage doctor martens.
Frowner, you might have to factor in european fashion attitudes to shorts in general, to understand that. In the UK I suspect there is still some association of short pants with childhood thing going on too.
I don't want to see any Obama muffintop.
Obama's hardly got enough bodyfat to be worth eating if you crashed on a desert island. I think you're safe.
211: Oh sure. The beyond-skinny jean on hipster boys. Those who choose this look nearly always have big chunky eyeglasses and multiple tats.
On the development of fashion trends: a friend returned from the Post Office recently to report that a young lady there had been wearing such low-cut jeans (with accompanying cropped shirt) that little wisps of her pubic hair were just visible above her belt-line. She was in the company of her father, as it happened. A few people tried not to stare.
!!! I speculated that this was the beginning of a backlash against the recent trend of utter shaving/waxing of the pubic area. Ha ha! Not only do I not have a Brazilian, I am demonstrating that fact! Radical, eh?
I may have been overreading, but still, funny as hell.
Plus, what's wrong with having hairy legs? Again, I don't understand. And what's wrong with being pale?
Nothing and nothing. But shorts on adults look dumb. IMHO they look equally dumb on grown men and women, but nobody was going there.
In the UK I suspect there is still some association of short pants with childhood thing going on too.
I am wearing knickers right now.
213: I can accept that, but there was just some male-on-male shorts/leg-shaming here at work in the good old Amurkin midwest the other day (and it was mean-spirited, too; I actually intervened because I knew that the guy in question worries about appearance stuff.)
I don't wear shorts myself.
To me it's quite obviously redolent of the idea that dads, and men generally, are just kind of expected to become unhip and dorky. It's kind of amusing, and can even be adorable. But women who give up on or somehow don't achieve looking fashionable, even if it's for perfectly understandable reasons of raising children, holding down a job, etc., get slapped with "ewwww, you look like a mom!". I really don't think it's just about rejecting one's parents.
Ditto! Ditto!
217: I've been coming around to that point of view for men.
I am wearing knickers right now.
I'm not.
216: I don't think it's anything new. I've seen just visible pubic hair fairly often, going back to when the low rise jeans trend started.
If I didn't wear shorts, how would people admire my calf muscles?
I've been coming around to that point of view for men.
Do you apply this geographically equally? It's been hovering in the 100s and sticky here recently....
223: Women said "stop staring at my chest' and M/tch listened. Sort of.
I don't think it's anything new.
In fact it's passé!
I don't think it's anything new.
Once died electric blue, even.
225: I keep forgetting about hotter places as we haven't had a day above 90 yet (and only a couple above 80). No, I wouldn't apply it to summer in the South.
I don't think shorts on adults have to look dumb.
If I didn't wear shorts, how would people admire my calf muscles?
You have to invite them up to admire your etchings, I think.
I don't get the generalized disapproval of shorts myself. Sure, lots of people don't have pretty legs, male or female, but that's not the fault of the shorts.
Once died electric blue, even.
That's like some kind of minimalist poem, or maybe an album title.
To me it's quite obviously redolent of the idea that dads, and men generally, are just kind of expected to become unhip and dorky. It's kind of amusing, and can even be adorable. But women who give up on or somehow don't achieve looking fashionable, even if it's for perfectly understandable reasons of raising children, holding down a job, etc., get slapped with "ewwww, you look like a mom!".
Appearance-wise, yes. But the mom shift is a shift from an archetype of being attractive but not respected, to an archetype of being responsible and deserving respect.
I'm wearing my wife's knickers.
Sure, lots of people don't have pretty legs, male or female, but that's not the fault of the shorts.
What about the shorts? WILL NOONE THINK OF THE SHORTS???
to an archetype of being responsible and deserving respect.
The respect that goes along with "ewww, you look like a mom!"?
I keep forgetting about hotter places as we haven't had a day above 90 yet (and only a couple above 80).
Sigh. Last night was the first time in ages it dropped into the 80s in the middle of the night. Should stay down there or maybe even lows in the 70s for a few days, due to thunderstorms. Keeps the highs in the 90s anyway.
But the mom shift is a shift from an archetype of being attractive but not respected, to an archetype of being responsible and deserving respect.
No. That's pretty much what I'm thinking of as the difference between 'mom jeans' and 'dad shorts': a 'dad' in dorky shorts may not be a hot young stud, but he's responsible and respected. A 'mom' in jeans that give her a potbelly is treated like a socially unimportant moron.
Appearance-wise, yes. But the mom shift is a shift from an archetype of being attractive but not respected, to an archetype of being responsible and deserving respect.
This is... not my finding.
I don't really like wearing shorts. I only have one pair right now, because they were the only ones that looked good. On men I kind of like the red preppy shorts that are a bit longer.
For comfort in hot weather, I much prefer loose flowing linen pants. The particular styles I'm thinking of look fine wrinkled--so, not high maintenance.
227: In fact it's passé!
Damn! I was all set to settle down with a bowl of popcorn to observe the wars of the pubic hairs, pro and con.
"Mom" haircut from the 70s and 80s: that short feathered do that I believe the mom from the Brady bunch had and that every mother in my neighborhood had
I have an unpleasant suspicion that I have this haircut, as a side effect of growing my hair long again. I mostly ignore it, and think of the goal. But I occasionally get a tiny inclination to feather those wings up and own my haircut.
I don't actually know how to do things with hair, so it won't happen.
I believe I've surpassed my comment density quota anyway, so I'll leave you to that war, parsimon.... just try and keep them out of your popcorn.
241: POPCORN? DON'T FORGET THE CAN OF COKE TO GO WITH THAT!!
||
Two incredibly awkward young missionaries came to my door, and as I was no-thanking them and closing the door, one points at Hawaiian Punch and sort of desperately says, "But! But did you ever wonder where she came from?"
I stared at him as allllllllll the innappropriate responses came to mind. Finally he said, "I mean, her spirit. Where her spirit came from."
I said that we were good, and closed the door.
|>
243: I wouldn't participate in such a war, for heaven's sake. I just figured I'd watch -- but it turns out I was fabricating the whole thing as a trend, buck-the-trend state of affairs. I knew that, of course, but was still greatly amused at the idea, and am slightly disappointed.
shorts on adults look dumb.
I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK. (CLICK ON NAME)
Also, I hate hearing men deprecate their bodies. It is very rare that I don't find some beautiful line to ogle on any man who stays active. Men should wear shorts, and I will walk behind them admiring their calves. I promise to make eye contact if you turn around.
I stared at him as allllllllll the innappropriate responses came to mind.
How can you be so sure you thought of allllllllll the innappropriate responses? I think you need to list them here and let us check to make sure.
Anyone who think shorts on adults look dumb has not lived anywhere sufficiently hot, or loves Wranglers.
the mom shift
Moms probably oughtn't wear shifts. Only a pretty young thing should wear a shift.
245: "She has no soul, for her father is SATAN!!!"
A) I have pretty legs (well-sculpted through ascending the steps of Porter Sq) and I still think shorts are stupid.
B) Jeans are utilitarian. To call something "mom-jeans" is to reconnect it to its original purpose. Jeans were never for seduction, they were for mining.
c)The problem with BHO's appearance at the all star game wasn't his pants, it was the pitch. Was there ever a gayer opening to the all-star game? Did he pitch that way to make up for his inactivity on DADT?
251: YOU'LL NEVER SEE ME IN A SHIFT, THAT'S FOR SURE, OLD MAN.
249:
1. Start humping his leg
2. Lose my bowels and start howling at the moon
3. Hand him Hawaiian Punch and say "I'll be right back" and disappear indoors
4. ...
Oops! Baby crying! The remaining alllllllllllll are left for the reader as an exercise.
1. Start humping his leg
2. Lose my bowels and start howling at the moon
3. Hand him Hawaiian Punch and say "I'll be right back" and disappear indoors
4. ...
5. PROFIT!!!
238: a 'dad' in dorky shorts may not be a hot young stud, but he's responsible and respected.
What if he's wearing male capri pants, such as are commonly sold oversized for the hip-hop market?* Saw a fellow dressed that way downtown last year and had no respect for him what so ever.
*I.e. He had bought oversized shorts that fit his waistline, not realizing that they were intended for use by someone much skinnier, so instead of flapping around enticingly, they were fitted to his white guy dad legs.
258: I thought you hated the police, minne. You make an exception for the Fashion Victims Unit?
a 'dad' in dorky shorts may not be a hot young stud, but he's responsible and respected. A 'mom' in jeans that give her a potbelly is treated like a socially unimportant moron.
Maybe that is widely true for Manhattan, LB, but neither one is a safe assumption in my personal experience. Shrug.
What's with the shorts are stupid thing? This is like the men who wear sandals are stupid thing, isn't it?
It must be because men who wear shorts or sandals aren't properly equipped to defend the realm ... on the veldt.
261: If you want to see my toe nails, just ask nicely.
Speaking of shifts, how does one distinguish a shift from a chemise from a nightdress?
What's with the shorts are stupid thing?
There are a lot of people who spend a ton of mental energy on how they are personally affected by other people's clothing choices. Makes no sense to me, but it sure comes up here a lot.
260: I'm not sure exactly what 'safe assumption' means there. I'm generalizing about what 'mom jeans' signify -- I don't think wearing clothes characterized as 'dad' clothes has a tendency to make people marginalize the wearer on any axis other than youth and hipness. I do think wearing 'mom' clothes tends to make people marginalize the wearer in general rather than, like Ned said, classifying her as a responsible and respected adult.
But of course nothing is going to affect everyone the same way.
Speaking of shifts, how does one distinguish a shift from a chemise from a nightdress?
Vewwwwy cawefuwwy.
There are a lot of people who spend a ton of mental energy on how they are personally affected by other people's clothing choices. Makes no sense to me, but it sure comes up here a lot.
Shut up, hooker scrub!
OT: This should happened to John Yoo every single day that he is not in jail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0d25QydCU
There are a lot of people who spend a ton of mental energy on how they are personally affected by other people's clothing grammar and puncuation choices. Makes no sense to me, but it sure comes up here a lot.
I'm generalizing about what 'mom jeans' signify
And I'm saying that your generalization may hold true in Manhattan, which is disproportionately young, single, and rich, and the center of the American fashion industry. I wouldn't know.
But at least in the daily setting I'm used to, where the median person *is* a middle-aged working mother, wearing mom jeans does not get you treated like a "socially unimportant moron," except by teenagers. Who are themselves treated as socially unimportant morons by everybody else.
269: You misspelled punctuation.
270: NO ONE KNOWS MY PAIN
There are a lot of people who spend a ton of mental energy on how they are personally affected by other people's clothing choices.
And then there are those who occasionally amuse themselves by tossing a stone in the pond and watching the ripples.
which is disproportionately young, single, and rich,
Not really; there's a lot of middleclass and poor married people here. And we don't all disappear in a puff of smoke at thirty.
But there's no way to settle this beyond 'seems to me', and for that you'd want to rely on someone who lives someplace you recognize as ordinary.
268 - I heard applause at the end of the clip from the students, but I didn't understand which way it ran. For the Chasers? Or for Prof Yoo? Or for class ending early, which would also make sense.
There are a lot of people who spend a ton of mental energy on how they are personally affected by other people's clothing choices.
The problem is that it doesn't take any mental energy. My dad calls overweight women over 30 who wear frumpy clothes "blobs". He does so totally absentmindedly, and would pooh-pooh it if I tried to explain that I internalized that and it was a big pain in the ass to get past that.
276: My dad calls women over 50 who dress nicely 'dames'. I think he really enjoyed the 50s.
who lives someplace you recognize as ordinary.
i.e., not NYC.
there's a lot of middleclass and poor married people here
There are a lot of them everywhere, but the demographics of Manhattan are what they are, especially outside of Chinatown.
278: I understand that to be Apo's position.
erm, NYC should have been Manhattan in 278, obvs.
280: Right, which is part of what makes this all a bit pointless --- even (trying to) accounting for selection bias locally, we can't get around the fact that there are some pretty significant regional variations going on, too.
In a weird way, both Apo and LB are right. This is like my "horizontal layers" theory of social interaction: that you coexist with a ton of layers, but only see whichever layer is eye-level to you.
Goddamnit, HP, that is an unacceptably short nap. I haven't fully explained myself yet.
||
next step for the unfogged supergroup
|>
I also live in a part of the country that's fatter than the rest, so that's another covariate to add to the model.
Mmm. I just get a little cranky when e.g., stuff that gets mocked on national TV is dismissed as only disfavored by wealthy fashionistas. My Manhattan life is, obviously, a whirlwind of glamour, but I do try to stay in touch with what the little people think.
271: Ewww, you comment like a dad!
But on the current main topic, I guess where I'm stickling is that I don't think the "ewww, you look like a mom" thing is just kids being kids or an average manifestation of teen rebellion against grups.
I think it's steeped in the hyperfetishization and sexualization of youth in our culture, which teens internalize so that the worst thing they can imagine is looking like an ordinary middle-aged person. You've got to look young and hot or you have no real worth, which is a shitty thing to spend your teen years expending mental energy on.
stuff that gets mocked on national TV
...by a show that's produced and performed at the Rockefeller Center.
Do you pay your taxes, LB?
That John Yoo thing was good. Do you think though that Berkeley could ban them by arguing that they're disturbing the classroom?
289: For a national audience. What, people in the rest of the country don't watch TV because it's produced on the coasts?
290: Do you pay your taxes, LB?
Um, yes?
292: In that case, you are little people.
Most of the littlest people I know don't pay any taxes at all.
294: That Hawaiian Punch is a real leech on society.
She is really half-assing her naps lately.
My guess was that the students were applauding Yoo. I would be surprised if many of them openly mocked him.
Too bad.
where I'm stickling is
I don't disagree that the reaction exists. My stickling is that this thread has seen an almost indignant insistence that: a) the "mom jeans" concept is ever and always about denigrating women; b) any woman so foolish as to wear them in public will be greeted with revulsion and dismissal; and c) there is no such similar experience for men.
I'm pretty sure that we could all give first-hand examples of a, b, and c, and first-hand counter-examples as well but that would undermine the just-add-water gender wars narrative.
297: Too bad he wasn't wearing mom jeans.
300: Because I put the moves on women wearing mom jeans.
245: Oh, the baby? She's just something Jamies and I fucked up.
Wait, you meant the Leona Helmsley reference.
For the record, SNL is hardly a Manhattan cultural export, no matter where it's filmed. I'm sure the writers and comedians represent all geography of the US pretty evenly, and it's certainly widely enjoyed by people everywhere who love long, repetitive skits that rest on a weak premise.
||
"The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction."
An unsupported assertion for Gary Farber.
Like Emerson, ok not at all like Emerson, because of the immediate desires to share or use my reading-derived enthusiasms, currently Northrop Frye, or maybe deny myself sanctuary from the tethered imagination, the only way I think I can get ecstatic study done is to withdraw from the hubblebubble and hurlyburly. Not serious.
|>
an almost indignant insistence that: a) the "mom jeans" concept is ever and always about denigrating women
See, I don't think it's ever and always about that, and I don't think I've insisted on that, nor am I sure that anyone else has insisted on that either. What's gotten me stickly is assertions that it's not at all about denigrating women.
And I don't think anyone's insisted on b either, although maybe I missed it.
As for c, I also don't think that anyone's asserted that. I certainly don't think "mom jeans" is equivalent to "dad shorts", and I've argued against making an easy equivalence between the two, but I don't think that implies that there are not similar experiences for males.
And "the just-add-water gender wars narrative"? With all due respect, that just seems lazily dismissive.
I'm sure the writers and comedians represent all geography of the US pretty evenly,
And a fair bit of Canada's, prolly.
You've got to look young and hot or you have no real worth, which is a shitty thing to spend your teen years expending mental energy on.
Well, they're teens. They typically don't have jobs to provide independent wealth, they don't have a proper education yet, and they rarely have much of an identity outside of a fairly narrow social circle. Yet at the same time, they don't get cut the slack or general "ain't that cute" adoration of younger kids. At least, that's how I remember my adolescence. The only things they have going for them that are prized by society are youth and potentially hotness.
In other words, I mostly agree with Apo. I think the knee-jerk distaste for "mom jeans" is a function of youth disdaining signs of age and loss of beauty, moreso than anything very gender specific. Also, it can have heavy shadings of class depending on the utterer. I think there's roughly equivalent disdain for "dad shorts" and similar signs of middle-aged, middle-America males who've really got nothing going for them, so they wear a tie with a short-sleeved shirt.
Yeah, what Mγtch said. Nothing's universal, but there's something wrong with using the fact that nothing's universal to reject any attempt to talk about society.
Isn't Canada part of the US?
Other way around, but shhhhh, don't let anyone know.
||
Ecstatic = enraptured, ensorcelled, enchanted, entranced...transported...from the Greek for distracted
|>
I think there's roughly equivalent disdain for "dad shorts" and similar signs of middle-aged, middle-America males who've really got nothing going for them, so they wear a tie with a short-sleeved shirt.
To the extent that this is a claim that middle-aged men are denigrated to the same extent, or a similar extent, than middle-aged women, for no longer being young and sexually appealing, I think it's mistaken.
I love the term "with all due respect."
It is the polite way of saying "fuck you."
245: "Wow, abstinence-only sex ed really leaves a lot of holes, doesn't it?"
313: Because middle aged men are inherently sexually appealing. Laydeez.
I think there's roughly equivalent disdain for "dad shorts" and similar signs of middle-aged, middle-America males who've really got nothing going for them, so they wear a tie with a short-sleeved shirt.
Awww, Po-Mo, I'm sure you've got a nice personality.
But a question: do you think there are no differences in the beauty/youth/hotness standards that males are held to versus females?
do you think there are no differences in the beauty/youth/hotness standards that males are held to versus females?
Was anyone arguing that? I didn't think so.
With all due respect, that just seems lazily dismissive.
I don't feel I'm due any respect particularly, so no worries.
reject any attempt to talk about society
Not rejecting any attempts. I'm attempting to talk about it by adding a few more sweeping generalizations to the ones that always come out first.
318: "Roughly equivalent disdain" for dad shorts seems to imply that the hotness standard is gender neutral. If it doesn't imply that, I don't get it.
314: Fuck you, will. I duly respect apostropher, I just think he's being uncharacteristically wrong on a particular point.
But a question: do you think there are no differences in the beauty/youth/hotness standards that males are held to versus females?
Nobody thinks that. Get real.
It's been my impression, that in our society, women are seen as becoming more intelligent, responsible and deserving of respect when they make the transition to seeming like a parent, more so than the perpetually adolescent-minded "guy". If actual moms don't feel this to be the case, it's disheartening.
middle-America males who've really got nothing going for them, so they wear a tie with a short-sleeved shirt.
I think working for NASA is certainly not "nothing."
314: How do you account for the utterance "With all due respect, sir, fuck you."?
318: I wasn't accusing, I was asking. Po-Mo said:
I think the knee-jerk distaste for "mom jeans" is a function of youth disdaining signs of age and loss of beauty, moreso than anything very gender specific.
So I'm curious as to how he sees gender affecting this, if at all.
323: This is exactly what I think of, too. Particularly in the form of Ed Harris.
I just think he's being uncharacteristically wrong on a particular point
My point has been, as it usually is, "it's more complicated than that." If that wasn't clear, then I'm doing a bad job of explaining myself, which I attribute to working between comments and my tight pants.
If it doesn't imply that, I don't get it.
see, e.g. 161
I'm not sure that I would make "dad shorts" and "mom jeans" precisely equivalent, either. However, the existence of a gender assymmetry in general wrt social expectations obviously doesn't imply that each and every instance is asymmetric, or even that (as I had posed) some issues aren't reasonably separable from that framework. I don't think this, at least, can be controversial.
which I attribute to working between comments and my tight pants.
Nothing should come between your work and your tight pants.
However, the existence of a gender assymmetry in general wrt social expectations obviously doesn't imply that each and every instance is asymmetric, or even that (as I had posed) some issues aren't reasonably separable from that framework. I don't think this, at least, can be controversial.
In this you are correct.
313, 317: If I had to talk about the nebulous "society as a whole", then yes, I'd agree that middle-aged women are held to a higher standard than men. I just feel kind of Brooksian when I make such assertions. In my social circles, this isn't particularly the case. Equal opportunity cattiness regarding fashion in both genders, hopefully tempered by the knowledge that it doesn't really matter much.
We're also a uniformly young, but entirely mixed gender group, which undoubtedly has a lot to do with our perspective.
The NASA look - pretty gender-symmetric.
330: Nothing does, but sometimes work gets between my comments and my tight pants.
uniformly young
What's your cutoff for young? Anything plausible, I think we've got people over it.
The NASA look - pretty gender-symmetric.
What's your cutoff for young?
37.
entirely mixed gender group
A gender salad?
LB, I don't think unfogged was the referrent of "uniformly young" there
My point has been, as it usually is, "it's more complicated than that."
The general tenor of the "'mom jeans' is basically equivalent to 'dad shorts'" arguments so far seems to be "it's not that, it's just this" versus "it's more complicated than that".
340: That would make more sense, I suppose. What was the referent.
I'd agree that middle-aged women are held to a higher standard than men
So do you think that might have something to do with "mom jeans" being a stinging insult?
342: "In my social circles, ...", presumeably excluding pretend internet friends.
So do you think that might have something to do with "mom jeans" being a stinging insult?
See, M/tch, for me this assumes facts not in evidence. So I can see why we have differing takes on it. Which isn't an assertion my related experience is normative, of course.
women are seen as becoming more intelligent, responsible and deserving of respect when they make the transition to seeming like a parent
And if they can't manage the transition to motherhood, becoming an apple pie will do
For I have become Apple Pie, destroyer of waistlines
346: See, M/tch, for me this assumes facts not in evidence.
Have you got any theory as to why Obama was described as wearing "mom jeans" rather than "dad jeans"? That implies, to me, that "mom jeans" is insulting in a way that "dad jeans" wouldn't be.
336: Everyone's 24-25, pretty much, with some 27-28 year olds. But we're also all single city dwellers and very liberal on gender politics (as well as most others). Plus, social groups can always be pretty idiosyncratic, so this may not even be the case for others who share my demographic.
I just definitely hear as much ragging on guys' looks as on girls' looks, usually in a somewhat joking around or shaking-head-what-were-they-thinking? sort of way.
As I said, if asked about society at large, I'd be more inclined to read extra denigration into the epithet hurled at female clothing, because that seems to be the way things are. However, I would also put the middle-aged dad epithets in the same ballpark, even if they don't have society's extra-special misogyny sauce topping up their negative connotations.
||
Not sure what the norms are for this, but I'd appreciate it if somebody could blip-out 125 in the previous thread as it isn't me.
Sorry, it's the blasted ToS. If it's still up when I get home, I'll do it.
70 to 349.
The trolling has now reached the level of posting under regular commenters' pseudonyms. Fortunately it's still written in the same unmistakeable voice.
So do you think that might have something to do with "mom jeans" being a stinging insult?
I just think it is more gentle mockery than stinging insult. Of course, hearing it a certain way can cause offense. But that's true of most forms of gentle mockery--viz., mocking things for being swipple or DFHish.
349: Because, it's also questioning his masculinity. He's wearing women's clothing!
Have you got any theory as to why Obama was described as wearing "mom jeans" rather than "dad jeans"?
For the same reason I've heard women referred to as wearing "dad shorts" ? As mentioned in 111, I've no idea why the associations to particular styles have been drawn this way, but they seem to exist.
347.last gave me a needed chuckle in this thread.
Just for the record:
"Mom jeans" -- 121000 results on google. "Dad shorts" -- 170 results.
I should drop this -- it's just annoying to have two concepts that aren't in any way equivalently prevalent or influential equated as if they were.
it's just annoying to have two concepts that aren't in any way equivalently prevalent or influential equated as if they were.
I can see that (hence 328), but a better example didn't pop to mind originally.
I can see what you and M/tch are saying, it just doesn't match the usage I've actually experienced.
Way too many comments about this already though, think I'm done.
I am much more interested in how Stanley learned the term "dry hump" when he was in Cuba.
So do you think that might have something to do with "mom jeans" being a stinging insult?
I mean, when I've heard it used, the gender implication hasn't mattered anywhere near as much as the implications of old age, dowdiness, and the unflattering appearance when the person trying on the "mom jeans" would presumably cut a better figure in a different, more appealing fit.
I guess my point is that, even though I can see some potential for gender-specific shaming in there, I think the vast majority of the railing against mom jeans comes from the age and looks angle, and there are male garments that carry similar shame from that aspect. The general implication of warning someone against mom jeans is "you could look way better! why settle for something like that?!"
"Who wants to sex Mutumbo" should be replaced by "You'd look hot in mom jeans."
I've primarily heard "mom jeans" used by highschool aged kids, and although it can occasionally be just gentle ribbing, most often it's a stinging insult.
I can see how if you don't spend much time with that demographic and just see the teen lingo used by adults in an ironic manner, then it seems like no big deal, just a joke.
Also, what 360 said.
That implies, to me, that "mom jeans" is insulting in a way that "dad jeans" wouldn't be.
I was thinking about the "dad jeans" issue.
My first thought when I think of out-of-touch, given-up-on-looks middle-aged guys and their jeans is actually things like Levi's or Wranglers or Lees or something. In the fairly narrow straight leg fit (that's actually a tapered leg) and the light blue wash. In other words, they wear pretty much the same jeans as middle-of-the-road younger guys do, except that they look pretty ridiculous on the body type of a typical older guy.
With no distinctive style of jeans worn by middle-aged men, there can't really be "dad jeans", even if the look results in the same sort of ridicule as a "mom jeans" look.
I'm curious whether any of those who see "mom jeans" more as gentle mockery than stinging insult are actual moms. As a mom, yeah, I get that it's a gentle jibe at the wearer of said jeans -- ha ha, you're frumpy and uncool. It's a bit more stinging from the mom perspective -- ha ha, you're wearing "mom" jeans; get it? Moms are frumpy and uncool!
Related to 360, I'll bet that scheaty balls beats out similar terms for women.
368: "No one can resist my Schweddy Balls"
there can't really be "dad jeans"
See comment 33. Mens' pants are naturally low-slung due to different hip structure, and they only get lower as our middle-aged potbellies develop. Urkel needed suspenders to get the high-waisted effect.
So maybe a better comparison would be "plumber's butt", which term isn't actually denigrating plumbers specifically or blue-collar workers generally.
isn't actually denigrating plumbers specifically
It's not? What does it mean if not (1) plumbers are likely to have their pants falling off their butts so that you can see their crack and (2) this is gross?
Mens' pants are naturally low-slung due to different hip structure,
For most of the last few centuries, men wore their pants at their waists.
You're more likely to see your plumber's butt because plumbers wear tool belts and the nature of their work usually requires bending over. It's not a slam on the profession itself, it's just that exposed butts are funny. Yes, you could find people who look down on blue-collar workers and whose use of the phrase reflects that, but the expression doesn't arise from societal hatred of plumbers.
Similarly, the "mom jeans" thing--while you can find (usually pre-adult) people using it in a way that reflects attitudes toward older women--isn't generally a product of people hating their mothers.
isn't generally a product of people hating their mothers.
I don't think it's about hating one's own mother, it's about denigrating mom-aged females.
374: You could have just said "some of my best friends are moms!".
A somewhat frazzled one at the moment.
Eh. I'm not going to talk you into anything. The plumber:mom analogy, relying as it does on the characteristic equipment and bodily postures relating to being a plumber, is kinda weak, no? Mom-jeans are highwaisted and pleated because mothering? requires it? and are intrinsically funny like an exposed butt?
But you don't hate your mother, and I'm sure most people don't. Comity!
Surely noone who loves their mother, or any woman for that matter, can be sexist.
How do you know how people feel about Apo's mom?
382: I read the bathroom stall walls just like everyone else.
A somewhat frazzled one at the moment.
Jeans not comfy enough?
Maybe she just needs a higher waist?
ha ha, you're wearing "mom" jeans; get it? Moms are frumpy and uncool!
Yeah, this seems like a problem. Even if the original meaning of "mom jeans" comes more from a desire to not look like a very specific subset of older people who don't care about their appearance, the name is still problematic due to the implication of moms in general.
I mean, around the parts of Chicago where I live, work, and go out, it's easy to forget those pernicious effects, because there are far too many good-looking mothers in nice/tasteful clothing for "mom jeans" to carry any general sting. But in places less saturated with wealth, privilege, and superficiality, it must carry more weight.
373: True. I can remember when I was little my mom was always trying to get me to pull my pants up higher because she thought that pants should hit a boy's navel, or close to it. We fought on this for quite some time before she came to accept that pants didn't have the fabric to go that high anymore. I considered mocking her jeans as retribution.
386.1: I shouldn't say "seems like". It is a problem. Still, one that I can't quite think a way around, unless we get everyone to start using "frumpy" far more often and with proper invective.
My ex's mother insists on trying to get my daughter to wear her pants up to her gizard. (Technically, that is about 10 inches above the belly button.)
Jackmormon's comments upthread about earlier fashions coming back into style are interesting: should the "mom jeans" style become fashionable again, I suppose that in 10 years we'll be calling low-slung, around-the-hips jeans "mom jeans," and kids will "ewwww" about them.
In other words, the "mom jeans" or "dad shorts" thing can be read just as much as a statement about someone whose fashion sense is outdated or on hold, and who is therefore unattractively attired by contemporary standards. This is why I resisted LB's claim earlier that mom jeans etc. are simply ugly in themselves.
There's no denying, though, that a lot more weight (condemnation) accrues to women who are dressed unflatteringly than to men. Po-Mo's experience may be an outlier, because he and his crowd seem to be, like, metrosexuals. I'd insert an emoticon here if I could bring myself to do it.
387: my mom was always trying to get me to pull my pants up higher
Just imagine what the father of that girl at the Post Office (cf. comment 216) must go through!
Yeah, this seems like a problem. Even if the original meaning of "mom jeans" comes more from a desire to not look like a very specific subset of older people who don't care about their appearance, the name is still problematic due to the implication of moms in general.
Verily, this is the crux of the biscuit.
Still, one that I can't quite think a way around, unless we get everyone to start using "frumpy" far more often and with proper invective.
You could just start using some other term and make it mean that. I nominate "fetch".
Quit trying to make "fetch" happen, M/tch.
fetchy?
I don't think it will catch on.
Prone to confusion with "fetching", which I still use as a sincere compliment. On thinking about that, my word choice is probably a bigger problem than my jeans.
394,5: My sister tried to make 'fetch' happen. Didn't work.
She also spent a fair bit of time telling people that they were 'money'. I was so happy when that passed.
396: "Fetching" is a great word.
Verily, this is the crux of the biscuit.
I don't recognize this turn of phrase at all, but now I want a biscuit. Buttermilk, warm, with honey. Mmmm...
396: "Fetching" is a perfectly great compliment, which is why "fetch", if anything, should be a slightly dumb-sounding abbreviated form of "fetching". I still say "dowdy" and "frumpy" work best out of currently-existing descriptors.
I don't recognize this turn of phrase at all
You wound me, PMP.
There's a weird schizophrenia here between condemning the jeans in question as insufficiently fashionable and condemning those who condemn them as insufficiently fashionable.
"Mom jeans" is a little mean, but has the advantage of being apt and, you know, funny, and can be used with self-deprecation. It also evokes a comfort/style tradeoff, which of course is exactly what's going on with the jeans in question. It's not as if the term is responsible for the stereotype of mothers as frumpy -- which is something partially grounded in reality, and is something that all moms are aware of, even if many Moms are not frumpy at all. It's definitely less mean than "those ugly jeans that you are wearing, you ugly and unfashionable person," which seems to be the only realistic alternative proposed here.
Soccer moms and hockey moms do not wear mom jeans.
404: You do remember that the usage in the original post was not actually directed at a mom -- by calling Obama's jean's 'mom jeans', he was essentially being called as frumpy as a mom. Moms are bad enough that being compared to a mom is an insult. That's pretty rough.
And 'unflatteringly highwaisted jeans' wouldn't be workable?
I propose 'assatastrophic' jeans. It works, for different reasons, for both mom jeans and plumbers butt.
||
Speaking of ass, I just called one of my senators and growled at a staffer. Satisfying!
|>
It also evokes a comfort/style tradeoff, which of course is exactly what's going on with the jeans in question.
I find it amusing that everyone keeps saying that mom jeans are comfortable. In my anecdotal experience, really, they're not. My own mother used to refuse to wear jeans (I think the last time she had bought new jeans was when mom jeans were in style) because she thought they were awfully uncomfortable. During a "style make over" that she requested from her daughters, we pulled out some nice, slightly lower rise jeans for her and now she wears them constantly, not because they're more stylish but because they're actually comfortable! They have a bit of stretch to them in the legs, the lower waist band doesn't cut into the stomach at an awkward point, etc, etc. (Of course one of the keys to all of this is buying jeans that FIT, but that's a different story).
Also, for giardia and related illnesses you would suffer from 'assatastrophic distress'.
Yeah, I tried to make that point in 165, but I don't think it worked.
Everyone ignores LB when she makes the "assatrophic" pun, then fawns all over Moby Hick. Sexists!
Moby's age made it seem more dignified.
And 'unflatteringly highwaisted jeans' wouldn't be workable?
This pretty much answers itself, I think. Way too many syllables.
re 409: I suspect this has rather a lot of dependence on ones geometry. Guys have a much easier go of that, in general.
As far as I can tell, Obama's jeans got called "mom jeans" because people were familiar with the SNL sketch and thought it was funny. I mean, sure, that's a little mean, but it's also kind of cute and at least it's evocative and you get a clear mental picture of the jeans; I don't read it as aggressively equating moms with ugliness. Wouldn't it be meaner to everyone involved to call them "poor person jeans" or "fat person jeans" or "old person jeans" or "ugly jeans"?
I actually heard some of our local AM sports radio blowhards talking about the jeans yesterday, before I read this post. They spent a good ten minutes talking about those damn jeans before moving on to talk about the Dodgers. I don't think they used the phrase "Mom Jeans" once, but they did call them "old man" and "fat guy" jeans, and one guy said that he looked like a tourist at Disneyland, which I guess is evidence that even our annoying sports blowhards here are coastal elites.
412: I think I missed something. And I usually remember ass-puns. Sorry LB.
409 -- Hmm, the plot thickens. So they're not even comfortable?
409 -- Hmm, the plot thickens. So they're not even comfortable?
Not to my mother (n=1) at any rate. Though I think that hers came from back in the day before they were making jeans with a bit of stretch, and we're constructed such that things that hit at our natural waist feel awfully constraining if they're at all stiff.
416: 411 was actually to 409, and heebie was kidding when she said I'd made the asstrophic joke first.
417: Not more than lower-waisted jeans, and can be less.
Maybe to rehabilitate the term, we could say something like "those jeans are so mom, and not in the good buttsex way either."
which I guess is evidence that even our annoying sports blowhards here are coastal elites.
Aren't nearly all radio blowhards "coastal elites" ? Especially the ones who's main schtick is not being one?
"mom jeans" are associated with age-based sexual invisibility; insofar as age does not impose sexual invisibility upon men in the same way, there is no male equivalent in common usage; the variation in the term's use, I think, has to do with whether the jeans are seen as cause or effect of said invisibility...
419: I knew it wasn't in this thread. I just thought you were the recognized master of ass-puns from a ways back or something.
Wouldn't it be meaner to everyone involved to call them "poor person jeans" or "fat person jeans" or "old person jeans" or "ugly jeans"?
These are meaner, why? Because it's less okay to mock fatness or poverty or old age or ugliness than motherhood?
It's not as if the term is responsible for the stereotype of mothers as frumpy -- which is something partially grounded in reality, and is something that all moms are aware of, even if many Moms are not frumpy at all.
So what you're saying is that moms generally are frumpy, though there are some good moms who dress quite nicely and aren't like those other moms but surely can laugh at them because moms generally are frumpy after all. And how on earth can using "mom" as a synonym for frumpy be at all responsible for the stereotype of moms as frumpy?
424=me, if the tone didn't already give that away...
417: No. Not unless you're used to pants tending to cut in at the waist so that you wind up with a marked line around your waist at the end of the day.
Moms sometimes do dress a teensy littlest bit frumpy.
421 -- Probably. These guys were local LA folk, not nationally-syndicated, and part of the shtick seemed to be that "none of the real dudes I'd hang out with here while watching the game and drinking beer would wear those ugly ass jeans." They really went on about this for a while.
I found it odd, because I hadn't heard that this was an issue when I heard the rant. I'd watched Obama throw out the first pitch at the ASG and hadn't noticed the jeans at all. I thought it was cool that he wore a White Sox jacket instead of something neutral or St. Louis-related, and I also thought the throw was a little weaker than what I'd have expected from Barry O.
So what you're saying is that moms generally are frumpy,
How did you get from "something partially grounded in reality" to synonym?
Anyway, there's so many circles in this thread I think I've lost track. But it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, if there was somewhere interesting to go in the first place.
I actually haven't seen the SNL skit, and in fact wasn't aware that there was one. I've just heard it used viciously by adolescents in that special vicious way that adolescents have.
The thing is, many Moms dress frumpier than they used to, pre-kids, partially out of generally growing older, but partially because their priorities have shifted and they don't have time and energy to keep up with fashion.
So criticizing frumpy Moms is partly celebrating that the rest of us don't have to do the gruntwork that Moms are making sure gets done.
This thread bypassed so many potential tangents that would have been more fun.
430: It was a funny bit, but not nearly so funny as 'Schweddy Balls' (which is Baldwin's best work that doesn't involve Thomas the Tank Engine).
There was an SNL skit about "mom jeans"? When? Weird.
431: Are you trying to hit somebody up for a nicer Mother's Day gift next year?
I've just heard it used viciously by adolescents in that special vicious way that adolescents have.
Which is clearly normative.
431: Agreed heebie. People brought this up earlier, too. If there was anyone, anywhere in the thread arguing that moms didn't get the short end of the stick this way, I missed it.
the throw was a little weaker than what I'd have expected from Barry O
Seriously, what was that? C'mon BHO, you took it to the rim against Tyler Hansbrough. I know there's more pepper in your arm than that.
I blame procedural liberalism.
This thread bypassed so many potential tangents that would have been more fun.
Definitely.
How did you get from "something partially grounded in reality" to synonym?
Easy -- I didn't. I equated "partially grounded in reality" with "generally" based on the reasoning that it would be absurd to suggest a stereotype is partially grounded in reality based only on the existence of frumpy moms who are not characteristic of moms generally. I suggested that "mom" is being used as a synonym for "frumpy" in the phrase "mom jeans" because, as I understand it, "mom jeans" is supposed to conoted the frumpiness of the jeans.
How did you get from "something partially grounded in reality" to synonym?
Easy -- I didn't. I equated "partially grounded in reality" with "generally" based on the reasoning that it would be absurd to suggest a stereotype is partially grounded in reality based only on the existence of frumpy moms who are not characteristic of moms generally. I suggested that "mom" is being used as a synonym for "frumpy" in the phrase "mom jeans" because, as I understand it, "mom jeans" is supposed to conoted the frumpiness of the jeans.
427 to 439
but we're rehashing at this point.
430: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mom-jeans/229048/
437: Wouldn't you figure that he's just never played baseball much? Generalized athletic ability is one thing, but throwing a baseball is a particular skill, and one he doesn't seem to have honed.
432: So not my fault. I've been tangenting for some time now.
Which is clearly normative.
Well, it's the only people I've heard use it, and they use if pretty frequently and fluidly, so it's not like considering that normative is crazy. Where and when have you heard it used?
The thing is, many Moms dress frumpier than they used to, pre-kids, partially out of generally growing older, but partially because their priorities have shifted and they don't have time and energy to keep up with fashion.
So criticizing frumpy Moms is partly celebrating that the rest of us don't have to do the gruntwork that Moms are making sure gets done.
Aha! I thought of something!
The implication is that moms are required to put away childish and glamorous things and be frumpy, by dint of now having responsibilities and no longer having free time or disposable income.
The criticism of non-moms who dress frumpily is that they do not have an excuse for doing so, they are lazy, and they should try harder.
just never played baseball much
Maybe he's just more the designated hitter type.
446: When it's delivered with the same sneer that you sometimes hear rich snobs use when talking about the clothes of the less financially gifted, or about the sweat and grime attendant to manual laborers, it's really hard to think of it as somehow a compliment to mothers.
424 -- The point is that motherhood is to some extent, associated with a kind of frumpiness that's neither poor, nor ugly, nor even unattractive. That's what makes "mom jeans" a little less mean than "ugly jeans," at least to my ear.
I think it's a bit silly to pretend that there's no real-world truth to the mental image of Moms as frumpy, because Moms (and Dads) are generally so hassled taking care of their kids that they aren't competing in the sexual/fashion arena in the same way that folks without kids are. I mean, I'm a parent, and most of the parents I know would agree with this. At the same time, everyone also knows that there are many moms (and dads) who look just as sexy and fashionable as anyone in the world. I'm jealous of those folks. A mildly funny play on the name of a kind of jeans isn't the same thing as saying that motherhood=condemned to being unfashionable or ugly forever, and it's a little silly to pretend that it does.
If anything, though, I'd say that the "hot mom" cultural stereotype has more play right now than it has at any time that I can remember.
I really wonder if M/tch is the only person here who hears the term sued frequently, sneeringly, mean-spiritedly, superiorly, etc. He seems extremely passionate on this issue. I've never heard the phrase used at all, but that's no surprise.
427, 441: The thing is, I dress far less* frumpy post-Rory than I did pre-motherhood. I think mostly by virtue of (a) having a bit more disposable income to spend on less frumpy attire, (b) having a professional career in which dressing a bit better seems to be a virtue, and (c) having a style-conscious tween who will let me know if I'm out of line. I cannot possibly be alone in this. And I see plenty of people who are not moms who are plenty frumpy.
*Less frumpy. I'm still no fashionista and surely never will be. But motherhood has shifted the calculus away rather than toward frump.
M/tch, you've been saying this over and over, we get it, it nearly completely characterizes your experience of the usage. It's been equally clear for the entire thread that this does not characterize everyone elses experience.
So I'm thinking about why I don't have that read off it, and a good chunk of the time I've heard it used at all has been self directed by moms. Also by young women chasing fashion. College kids repeating that skit when it was current. Some adolescents like your experience. Some adolescents unlike your experience, in that there was no vitriol in it. Some kids/tweens teasing their parents. In other words, quite a mix. The vast majority of which completely lacking the "the same sneer that you sometimes hear rich snobs use..." though.
ymm(obviously)v
Above in no way denies the existence of a social pigeonholing of moms, or the attendant issues. But I never claimed anything like that.
I really wonder if M/tch is the only person here who hears the term sued frequently, sneeringly, mean-spiritedly, superiorly, etc. He seems extremely passionate on this issue.
I do hate this form of argument -- when people have been going back and forth on an issue for a long time, asking why one side but not the other is so invested in the issue is a little silly, no? I've been arguing as much as M*tch has, and I don't think "mom jeans" is the worst thing I've ever heard anyone say. I just find the argument that the term doesn't refer to a general disdain for moms as out of it and unattractive as so implausible that it's hard to let go of while people are still arguing the other side.
Further to 449, I met an English guy at a party here who was writing a book on the po/rn industry. He said that MILF po/rn now is far more successful and commercially important than "teen" po/rn; he told a story about a girl who had gotten into the industry, then told her mom about it; the mom came out to the San Fernando Valley and became a bigger "star" than the daughter. Of course, the alternative read of this exciting cultural datapoint is "unbelievably fucked up and abusive family situation," but still.
My personal crusade to get the "DILF" movement started hasn't really met with much success, however.
452: I can see objecting to any perceived reflection from all this sure, but however much your own situation doesn't match what Rob is saying in 449, that doesn't mean there isn't an overall trend.
and a good chunk of the time I've heard it used at all has been self directed by moms.
Likewise, women saying "God, I'm so fat," has nothing to do with social pressure and unhealthy body-images.
454: We seem to be experiencing a plausibility gap, sure. Afaics though, it's symmetric, and mostly boils down to "wow, peoples personal experience sure differs, doesn't it"
455: While I'm not especially riled up about the Mom-jeans, it's probably best not to get going on the MILF-porn if we want to keep me from turning into a hulk-smash-feminist.
Likewise, women saying "God, I'm so fat," has nothing to do with social pressure and unhealthy body-images.
Sure LB. In context that's very clearly what I'm claiming.
459 -- Not defending the porn industry! Just pointing out its weirdness!
Okay, but because you see a mother calling a pair of jeans 'mom jeans' isn't any sort of indication that the term's harmless.
however much your own situation doesn't match what Rob is saying in 449, that doesn't mean there isn't an overall trend
It also doesn't mean there is. I raise my own experience only in that I don't especially think I'm so special and unique a little snowflake and the moms I know are generally, to my eye, growing more and more stylish with age.
So I'm thinking about why I don't have that read off it, and a good chunk of the time I've heard it used at all has been self directed by moms. Also by young women chasing fashion. College kids repeating that skit when it was current. Some adolescents like your experience. Some adolescents unlike your experience, in that there was no vitriol in it. Some kids/tweens teasing their parents. In other words, quite a mix. The vast majority of which completely lacking the "the same sneer that you sometimes hear rich snobs use..." though.
I've heard the terms "fat bitch" and "nigger" and "retard" used in all those ways too. It doesn't mean that casual use of a particular term by anyone and everyone is therefore harmless.
and the moms I know are generally, to my eye, growing more and more stylish with age.
Poor Di, with her mom-eyes.
465: I'm talking about the ones in the back of my head, Heebie. When yours come in, you'll see. Mom-eyes miss nothing!
"the moms I know are generally, to my eye, growing more and more stylish with age."
That fits with my experience, but I always figured it was because I was getting older myself.
I'd say that the "hot mom" cultural stereotype has more play right now than it has at any time that I can remember.
Good lord - this reminds me that a few weeks ago I saw a mother of a teenage boy playing this to the hilt with the rest of her son's lacrosse team. He was clearly embarrassed; I was a little embarrassed for her. I've never seen such an obvious show of sexuality* that wasn't directed at paying customers before. I have no idea what was going through her head, but I think she'd been zapped by the porn industry or something.
*I know this sounds super judgmental, and really, I'm all for moms also being sexual - but, um, not with the 13 year old boys.
Okay, but because you see a mother calling a pair of jeans 'mom jeans' isn't any sort of indication that the term's harmless.
For fucks sake, LB. Basically the first thing I said on the entire subject was that we live in a social context that both de-values mothers and holds women to much higher fashion standards than men. So these messages are ubiquitous and part of a larger context that we've talked about many times.
And I said given this larger context, in my personal experience, I had experienced this particular messaging used in a way that was particularly denigrating of women. That I thought the labeling could be reasonably separated from the context, that most of the usage I had seen was, contra M/tch, very light hearted.
And I followed that up by an admission that maybe I was just being tin eared about it all and had missed something. How am I going to be more reasonable than that? Apparently for some it's best to just ignore anything I actually said about this and assume my position allowed for no nuance at all.
You can disagree with my assessment of my own experience, you can agree that yes, I'm probably just being tin eared about it, and I'd be happy with that. But instead, you (and M/tch, and whoever else) are basically just telling me I'm an idiot and don't understand any of the complexity here.
I've heard the terms "fat bitch" and "nigger" and "retard" used in all those ways too.
There's such as thing as bringing too much gun to the church picnic, even on the Internet.
It also doesn't mean there is.
No, you're right, it doesn't. On average, I think there is. But whatever, I'm not getting into another one of those today.
469: We'd really need details before we could say if it was inappropriate or not.
It's a little weird to compare "fat bitch" "nigger" and "retard" to the use of "mom" at issue here. Also, isn't this kind of thing what the analogy ban was for?
dag nabbit. How many times will I forget that nothing good comes of my getting all earnest (and verbose) on a thread.
I ban myself.
I keep almost commenting, but then one baby or another pulls me away, so I'll just say that:
1) M÷tch and LB are clearly right, and
2) the insistence that pejoratively calling unflattering pants "mom-jeans" is unconnected to negative images of motherhood is... goofy. This is, as M¶tchum pointed out in 420, exactly the "gay/ghey/prissy" thread all over again.
Gotta go put on my dad-shirt. (That's the one with spit-up already on it.)
How am I going to be more reasonable than that?
Acknowledging that society denigrates mothers and judges women on harsher fashion standards loses a little oomph when you follow it with, "But, really, it does seem like the trend is for women to get frumpier when they become moms."
Parenthetical, aren't you in California? What was a lacrosse team doing there? Are you sure this wasn't just some kind of elaborate strip tease set up?
Are you sure this wasn't just some kind of elaborate strip tease set up?
Or sting operation?
470: For fucks sake yourself. All I was saying is that self-directed uses of a slur aren't any kind of evidence that it's not a slur.
And the rest of what you're saying is just weird: if I understand you, you're agreeing about the background that we "live in a social context that both de-values mothers and holds women to much higher fashion standards than men," but saying that given that context, the 'mom-jeans' thing isn't any worse. All I, and M%tch, and Frowner, and Di are saying is that the 'mom-jeans' thing is part of that social context, and like that context kind of sucks.
478: I am. Lacrosse is very popular here, for reasons I don't quite get but it might be about upper middle-class aspirations to prepitude. (Or, I hear tell that it's really fun.)
As for details, it was the kind of experience that's hard to recapture - something about the combination of body language, touching, tone, and comments altogether made me feel icky, rather than one particular moment. The boys seemed to be enjoying the attention, though.
And, in fairness to the woman concerned, she was attractive, and it may be that flirting is a way of life for her.
And, in fairness to the woman concerned, she was attractive, and it may be that flirting is a way of life for her.
Um, not that I would think the behavior worse in a woman who was unattractive.
My mom jeans have Hot Pockets.
Is it fair to say that the use of certain terms reflects deeply embedded cultural attitudes, and that while people who use those terms aren't necessarily revealing sexism, or racism, or whatever, the terms themselves are problematic?
I'd say that's fair, and that that's what's going on in interrogation of the phrase "mom jeans." Many people who use the phrase may not mean anything hostile by it, and in fact may not even think that moms in general are frumpy; still the phrase reflects something. We all know this.
Discussion of possibly sexist or racist terms does this all the time: "he" as general term for "human being" is problematic, but this fact doesn't mean that everyone who uses the term is a flaming sexist. We still might want to move away from "he" as default. For example. Etc. I doubt any of this with respect to "mom jeans" will help to counter our society's general obsession with youth, though.
479: I see what you are trying to say there. It's just hard for me to see describing a woman (or man) as having relaxed her fashion standards as not still kind of validating? reinforcing? those standards.
I endorse 486.
(I know you were all waiting for my opinion.)
483: Maybe she was lonely and never learned another way to relate to men?
I'm going to now self-ban myself after this comment, but comparing the use of "mom" in "mom jeans," to the use of the word "n_gger," or saying that it's socially out of bounds to point out that mothers are often frumpier than non-mothers (not that it's always true! or permanently true! but it is often true!), is really taking this kind of discussion to the point of self-parody. I mean, are there nicer things one could say about mothers? Sure. Is the use of the phrase more a relatively harmless joke than a slur designed to equate all mothers with asexual ugliness? Also, and very obviously, yes. We all understand that oppression is rampant and that language is constituitive of culture, but there are also times when the answer to "is this a big deal" is very clearly "no."
||
Facebook is suggesting that I friend Jammies' mom, whose icon is a picture of Hawaiian Punch. It's kind of amusing to see a photo of your baby, proposed by a website.
|>
492: She probably knew that a picture of herself in jeans would be like pogo sticking a minefield.
I likewise agree with 486 -- with the caveat that, while person might carelessly use a problematic term without ill-intent, once the problem with the term is pointed out, insisting that whether the term is problematic turns on the intent of the person using it is itself problematic.
490: I don't think so. It really seemed like she was reveling in the idea of being "Stacy's Mom" to a bunch of teenagers. Then again, I'm probably just reading into the situation things that aren't there....
but there are also times when the answer to "is this a big deal" is very clearly "no."
What's driving my engagement with this conversation isn't a commitment to the idea that the term "mom jeans" is a big deal, but that it's something real, and not a good thing. What we're arguing over is, I think, the space between "not a big deal" and "doesn't mean anything negative at all."
491: I believe the point of analogizing to the n-word or other slurs was in part to note that possibly, perhaps, just maybe the group which is the targert of the "relatively harmless joke" is probably in the best position to assess how harmless it actually is.
||
How can so many of my facebook friends do those goddamn "What's your Native American name?" "What's your ghetto name?" etc racist quizzes?
|>
499: They perceive them as relatively harmless humor.
My facebook friends are going to help me get some money out of a Nigerian bank.
Di, you're a mom. Do you really see the "mom jeans" sketch on SNL as something horrendously personally offensive, or do you see it as mildly poking around a stereotype? This is a real, not a rhetorical question, because sometimes these Unfogged conversations turn into a fever-swamp of reasoning-by-analogy-to-racism.
I'm sad that nobody managed to land a jeans remark a couple of comments ago.
503: as something horrendously personally offensive, or do you see it as mildly poking around a stereotype?
Can it be offensive without being horrendous? It'd be nice if I could disapprove of the usage without that disapproval being automatically self-discrediting because I'm overly upset about it.
What's driving my engagement with this conversation isn't a commitment to the idea that the term "mom jeans" is a big deal, but that it's something real, and not a good thing. What we're arguing over is, I think, the space between "not a big deal" and "doesn't mean anything negative at all."
If I'm on the other side of the argument, I think the argument is between "It's an entirely negative stereotype" and "It's a negative stereotype with some positive connotations".
Do you really see the "mom jeans" sketch on SNL as something horrendously personally offensive, or do you see it as mildly poking around a stereotype? This is a real, not a rhetorical question,
Almost everyone who has said that the term is problematic has also said that it's not the worst thing ever, and in no way "horrendously personally offensive". Isn't in somewhere in between your extremes?
505 is fair. I guess what I'm asking is, do you actually feel that the joke is offensive enough so that you feel it in your gut more as an insult to motherhood, or as something harmless?
I don't feel it in my gut. But I have fantastic taste in fashion, so.
That seems like the same false dichotomy. It is an insult to motherhood. I don't know that I feel it in my gut as such -- I'm certainly not lying awake over it. But it's part of a background drone that devalues women who are performing female roles, and aren't at the peak of their youthful sexual attractiveness; not a huge part of that background noise, but I wouldn't want to call it categorically harmless.
503: I see it as a small part of a bigger problem. As a mom, I have on many occassions felt myself limited by people's perceptions of what moms are supposed to be like. I mean, I hope it's pretty clear that I really love my mom-role and think being a mom is a pretty important part of who I am. But there are lots of assumptions out there about moms and it can really grate to feel yourself suddenly not being viewed as a unique and interesting person but instead as A Mom, who is of course not interesting because we all already know what Moms are like.
I'm not expressing that well, and I hope someone can figure out what I mean and say it better. No, I don't think "mom jeans" is the worst thing ever. It's a little thing, maybe -- but it's lumped in with a whole bunch of little things that add up to a big pile of things.
Or, it is an insult to mothers. I don't know about an insult to 'motherhood'.
But also, I haven't had to take any hits yet for being a mom. I haven't had kids dishing crap out at me, or being written off as overly protective, or whatever. (Does every fragment in this comment have a doube entendre?) The gut feeling may come with time.
487: It's just hard for me to see describing a woman (or man) as having relaxed her fashion standards as not still kind of validating? reinforcing? those standards.
I'm not sure I agree. I hate to say it, because it will probably rankle, but insisting in the face of the generalization that moms often relax their fashion standards that 'No! No they don't! Not all of us, not all the time, really, we're still stylish, lots of us!' strikes me as buying into the thought that being unstylish (i.e. frumpy) is just awful. That is, it reinforces those standards.
Better to acknowledge that some people just don't give much of a shit about stylishness, and that's not a bad thing. Seems to me.
505: Don't feel bad about being so hysterical, LB. Clearly, this idea that women are overly emotional is partially grounded in reality.
526: You know what bothers me? When something someone else does is legitimately annoying/frustrating/etc but because you're all hormonal and shit your reaction is just a tiny bit more than it should be, and then everything gets dismissed as "just pms."
'No! No they don't! Not all of us, not all the time, really, we're still stylish, lots of us!'
I'm pretty sure this was no one's response. Mine, anyway, was to question the premise that moms as a class relax their fashion standards upon becoming mothers. Some do, some don't, lots of women and men and whoever else do or do't at times and for reasons that have nothing to do with motherhood was my point.
All I was saying is that self-directed uses of a slur aren't any kind of evidence that it's not a slur.
Right, as if I hadn't already said this was a possibility, but that I didn't think it was what was going on. In other words, to ignore what I was saying while nominally engaging with it.
but saying that given that context, the 'mom-jeans' thing isn't any worse.
No, that given the context, and in my experience it wasn't particularly exemplifying it or carrying a lot of that weight. That it was less (that average? in some sense, anyway) reinforcing the context than many things might be. That compared to my experience, what M/tch was saying seemed bizarre.
But I said all of that before, so I'm going to stop now. I think I've given up on trying to clarify now, too.
Parenthetical would have numbered that correctly but, you know, women troubles.
It's Friday. I'm going home to unwind by captioning pictures of cats.
520: So true. That, or I am anticipating that 526 is going to rightfully piss me off.
517: What further annoys me is that men also periodically overreact to things but there's no agreed upon syndrome to which we can attribute that and thereby reciprocally denigrate their potentially valid concerns. Except maybe my boss, whose foul moods I've taken to pointing out directly ("That sweemed like an uncharacteristically unpleasant way of handling that...") and who has taken to justify these things based on hunger and who I think I will start passive-aggressively dismissing whenever he annoys me by asking, "Have you eaten recently." But mostly they get to have their periodic outbursts without getting the shit for it we do.
We also get shorter lines for the bathroom.
who has taken to justify these things based on hunger
I am at my bitchiest when hungry.
Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider
Girls go to Mars to get more candy bars.
Snips and snail and puppy dog tails.
no agreed upon syndrome to which we can attribute that and thereby reciprocally denigrate their potentially valid concerns
"Please come back after you've gotten laid."
No, but we may technically have just had sex.
530: Oh, really? Huh. I guess that *is* pretty much how I remember it...
The idea that women are more emotional than men is pernicious and completely inaccurate sexism. Full stop. If anything, IME, men are far more emotional than women.
Thanks for 511 and 512. I don't see how anyone could fail to understand, or reasonably argue with, any of that. And I don't really think that anyone here (except for Apo, that bastard) is actually taking issue with any of that. I'm not.
When one of these words/jokes/insult threads comes up, some fool (here, it's me) will always say "that's not a big deal." Anyone who thinks that the joke/phrase is the tip of the iceberg of underlying oppression, reads that as saying "the oppression is not a big deal, and I'm insulting you." All of a sudden we've spiraled out into a 500 comment thread where people are getting testy and defensive. Which is why these conversations suck, or at least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
I should note that I found the reference in 511 to a "false dichotomy" hurtful and insensitive. I am nothing if not true!
Better to acknowledge that some people just don't give much of a shit about stylishness, and that's not a bad thing. Seems to me.
You rang?
(except for Apo, that bastard) is actually taking issue with any of that.
Where did I take issue with that?
We also get shorter lines for the bathroom.
I've never understood why women take so long to go to the bathroom. C'mon, it's not that hard!
Mom's can too be stylish.
The movie last night was Savage Grace
Mom:I like this fabric.
Son:I think it's a worsted.
Mom:I like it better than your other worsted.
Son:Well, it's a Anderson worsted.
Kidding, and a diversionary ruse. I'm just trying to deflect the attack squad your way while I hide in my foxhole. Sorry if I got the tone wrong.
I've never understood why women take so long to go to the bathroom.
1. We can't just whip it out like the boys do.
2. Sometimes there are additional menstrual-related issues that take up some of that time.
3. We have to wait for stalls and can't just pee at a hole in the wall.
I'm sure there are more...
|| So, uh, on Facebook. Can you make yourself invisible to certain people on chat but visible to everyone else? |>
We can't just whip it out like the boys do.
Certainly not with that defeatist attitude, you can't.
I've never understood the use of "whip it out" to refer to the removal of the male organ from its covering garments. I generally remove my penis from my pantaloons much more gently than that term suggests.
I don't know about the rest of the wait staff, but I just use these silver tongs.
546: Handy tip: when I'm on the go and can't pack my silver tongs, I carry a little packet of those papers they use to grab the donuts with at the donut shop.
539: I'm sure there are more...
I could argue if you like, but you pulled the menstrual maneuver, so all bets are off.
548: What, you don't think that's time-consuming?
Anyway, Pars, 539 was intended as a sincere response to your question. I really don't care to "argue" about how long women should reasonably take in the restroom..
549: Well, sure, if you're changing things and stuff. And I guess in any given gathering of women, some percentage will need to do that. Erm. I can't see that accounting for the long frickin' lines, but I could be wrong. I also don't know whether there are more urinals in a men's bathroom than stalls in a women's bathroom.
I bet it takes time to open and close the stall doors.
550: Di, I'm mostly fooling around, but I must say that sometimes I'm puzzled by how long it seems to take women in the bathroom. I suspect they also primp a bit before the mirror.
551: I suspect that it might have something to do with women using rest rooms as literal places of rest/escape more often than men.
Or maybe I'm the only person to do that.
551: I also don't know whether there are more urinals in a men's bathroom than stalls in a women's bathroom.
Yes. Urinals take less space. There is no sitting down, and much whipping out. Less time-consuming. That said, I am pretty sure women do primp in front of the mirror. But that's extra time on top of extra time.
In any event, B convinced me, way back there somewhere, that the solution to this issue (and in fact, the solution to the problem of transsexuals and bathrooms) is that we should just drop urinals and go all stalls all the time, basically.
I have, in fact, read this entire thread, so I think I can say that I agree that 'mom jeans' has apparently entered the lexicon as a pejorative. Where I would disagree with LB is the notion that there isn't any parallel derisory meme with regard to old men. I, for one, certainly remember that comics were going on fairly incessantly in the late 80's about old men with their pants pulled up to their waist, and there was a concurrent thread about old men in bermuda shorts. There were might or might not have been parallel remarks about old ladies (blue hair, I think). In any event, remarks about old men have been moved to the back burner in favor of remarks about old (or middle-aged) women.
This might have something to do with boomer men now being old, and there are more of them, so we hear less about that and more about Gen X women.
max
['That would be my tentative theory at any rate.']
Popular middle-school girl: I always feel bad when a girl takes a long time in the bathroom, because you just know everyone knows why.
Other girls: [exchanging significant looks] Yeah.
Young GB: ...
I had just enough of a clue to know that I shouldn't ask what they were talking about, but I certainly learned that I should be embarrassed when I was slow in the bathroom for any reason. Thanks, popular middle-school girl! Way to shame!
A common set-up is to see urinals or a trough against the back wall opposite the stalls. So basically in the same amount of space you have double or more the number of "stations" for peeing.
I suspect they also primp a bit before the mirror.
Why don't you try venturing into a woman's bathroom sometime to see for yourself?
I waited for like seven fucking minutes behind an old dude for the bathroom today, so I'm inclined to say it's more a problem with one-holers and stall numbers more than it is about "primping." There are plenty of guys who go into bathrooms for ages and ages, as one discovers in venues with non-gendered bathrooms.
Also, the "primping" theory doesn't explain why giant bathrooms, like at a baseball field, have longer lines at the women's. Once you get out of the stall, the line moves. It's really about numbers and convenience of peeing facilities.
My own theory is that it takes longer because some germophobes "hover" over the toilet and think it's perfectly reasonable to leave the thing absolutely covered in their urine. So you accidentally sit down like a normal human being and find that your entire backside is dripping wet with another person's waste, all because someone told them sitting is gross and they're too rude and lazy to fucking WIPE IT UP.
Yeah, the primping part shouldn't affect the lines for the stalls.
556.last: You will never, ever get my tone, will you, M/tch?
ot. All the fashionable mixed drinks types here probably know this one, but the Cornelius - yum. Sage, lime, and honey all muddled together. Add gin and ice, shake, pour. Again, very yum. Noticed cute girl next to me at the bar getting it, asked, bartender explained, she recommended it. Cute girl unfortunately with bf. Also, dollar oysters - annoyingly effective loss-leader. And for those of you in Bk. - whatever its name is on Vanderbildt and Dean, where the restaurant killer location previously occupied by the Korean place - nice.
On topic - I was wearing dad-shorts. No socks, I never do. If it's warm enough for shorts, it's warm enough for sandals.
they're too rude and lazy to fucking WIPE IT UP.
Do you have any idea how much extra time that would take?!!
On topic some more. At the bar I was flanked by attractive women. On one side she clearly didn't bother with make up and fashion. On the other the opposite. I found the former attractive because of learned response: the latter type finds my slobbishness annoying or worse. And yes I'm slightly Beck's style. Damn one dollar oysters on the blackboard just when I was craving them.
It also takes a lot of time for me to wipe all of another human being's urine off the vast expanse of my ass. Fuck them. I guess it just seems to me particularly rude (unlike, say, "primping") because it violates the categorical imperative. Clearly the germophobe is terrified of touching someone else's urine with their butt, thighs, etc., and so she sprays her own all around like a fucking tomcat and leaves it to moisten my derriere?
559: You will never ever get my tone, will you, parsimon?
563: Look on the bright side, AWB. At least women don't leave the seat up.
557: Also, the "primping" theory doesn't explain why giant bathrooms, like at a baseball field, have longer lines at the women's.
I have heard way too much anecdata from women complaining about other women hogging the mirrors while fritzing with their makeup to say it doesn't happen. That might be (probably is) venue-dependent. That said...
Once you get out of the stall, the line moves. It's really about numbers and convenience of peeing facilities.
I'm sure that's the basic issue.
max
['And while they're at it, they can put mirrors on the back of stall doors.']
It's possible that the germophobe pays everyone the compliment of assuming they're just like her, i.e., that they will never ever use the seat and thus won't be incommoded, so to speak, by her behavior.
Not that that makes it less gross.
I have heard way too much anecdata from women complaining about other women hogging the mirrors while fritzing with their makeup to say it doesn't happen.
Oh sure, people do this. But I don't begrudge anyone a lipsticking. It doesn't make them horrible people or something.
566: We're doomed.
On the women who leave the toilet seat wet, yes, for god's sake, it's akin to -- possibly worse than -- littering.
But I don't begrudge anyone a lipsticking. It doesn't make them horrible people or something.
Now when they leave lipstick all over the toilet seat, however . . . .
570: This is a better poem on the effect of shit on romance, but this is the best. Swift!
572: It's because your sense of humor is so mom.
I have heard way too much anecdata from women complaining about other women hogging the mirrors while fritzing with their makeup to say it doesn't happen.
I can't say I've ever run into this, but any woman hogging the mirror is already out of the stall and thus not affecting the pee-line.
I think I've only seen crowding at the mirrors in airports, and that's mostly been after a red-eye lands and lots of bleary people are dealing with contact lenses, brushing their teeth, etc.
Tacking back somewhat towards the OP, though I hope not too contentiously, can someone explain to me the virtues of stretch jeans? Does stretch denim with a not-unpleasant texture exist? It's getting increasingly hard to find 100% cotton ones, and this makes me sad.
But seriously, women are shallow bitchez, amiright?
580: I really love Express jeans, which have just a tiny tiny bit of stretch to them. It's not enough that you feel like you're wearing stretchpants, but it is enough that you can buy jeans that really fit you without wearing them for years or having the perfect fit at every point of your legs for the size. Also, they last for years and years.
580: I find jeans without any stretch to be less comfortable. You want stuff that is like, 99% denim and 1% stretch. In terms of texture, I think the fabric is nearly indistinguishable, but you gain greater freedom of movement. However, I'm not sure if we're discussing the same thing.
583: I'm wearing Express jeans right this very second!
No more Walter Cronkite.
In my high school years, this would have meant "we're out of weed." I think the most plausible etymology was that "chronic" lead to "Cronkite."
See, 581 was sort or humorously commenting on the discussion of how women take so long in the bathroom primping at the mirror as the sort of commentary that seems to imply that women are frivolous and vain when if they were sensible like men they would just whip it out, pee, and get out.
583: Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't tried Express jeans for years but will have a look, now that the Gap jeans I defaulted to for years have gotten so crap.
584: I've tried on jeans with 99%/1% and 98%/2% mixes, and they've always felt weirdly clingy, in a way that 100% cotton jeans that are similarly tight just don't. Does that make sense? I get that adding flexibility to denim would make for more comfort, but I don't want my jeans to grab at my quads with every step. I don't like wearing very fitted clothes in general*, and it's possible that I'm blaming the spandex when it's really the cut's fault.
*I gather. I would say that my default jeans are fairly tight---I felt really self-conscious in them at first, having previously just worn men's jeans for years---but several friends have said off-handedly (when trying to help me shop for jeans) that of course we should be looking at relaxed cuts because I clearly don't like tight jeans. Outside world ≠ my perception, apparently. Who knew?
590: I tend to buy Gap pants for situations in which I don't really want things to "fit" because I'm wearing them to teach or something and don't particularly want them to show my own personal shape. The problem is that Gap pants fit themselves, not me. Express happens to be the brand that fits me as me, but YMMV.
590: Well, it does sound to me like you don't actually like the cut as opposed to the fabric, but who knows. You might just be really sensitive to spandex!
What style of jeans do you usually wear? I like the trouser fit, among others, because that often is a looser leg (which I equate with looking more professional (I occasionally teach in dark jeans)) than the tighter ones I wear for other occasions.
Complicating the stretch issue is the fact that plain old denim really stretches a lot over time. I kept winding up at a point where I could pull my (non-stretch) jeans off without unfastening them and being all puzzled about how this could keep happening when I was plainly not losing weight, until I figured out that I should let them be a little uncomfortably tight (to do up) when I first buy them.
The problem I have with Express jeans is the same problem I have with all of their pants - they are ridiculously long on me. (I had a friend who didn't believe me, until we tried some on together. She burst out laughing at the footless wonder that I was. Actually, not just footless, but walking on about 6 inches of extra leg.) I have to shop at stores that offer either petites or ankle length options (and sadly, ankle length for me occasionally translates into "jeans you always wear with heels").
I will say that one of the things I loved most about my Express jeans is the salesguy who spent a ton of time bringing various cuts back to the fitting room and offering helpful opinions.
595: I had the opposite problem for years -- getting pants that would reach my ankles was impossible. I think "they" are cutting pants longer these days to accomodate dramatic heels, which works nicely for me.
Thinking about it, I doubt it's spandex per se, but rather constraint. My mom always tried to put me in turtlenecks as a kid and I hated it, not for reasons of style but because I felt like I was choking. I want to be freeeee! Yet, you know, clothed.
I shoot for jeans that are fitted (by my lights) through the thigh, with bootcut or flared legs. Long inseam a must. I wear jeans to lab, so I'm not looking for I-am-hot-shit jeans, just something I don't feel hopelessly style-less in.
598: yes indeed. This is actually why I switched to men's jeans to begin with; back in the day, there was no other way to find a 34" inseam.
See, I understand that theoretically I could get my jeans hemmed - or do it myself (but that always ends up looking inept) - but I'm way too lazy to do it. I just wish they would offer a variety of inseams, the way they do for men's jeans, at all places that sell jeans. Then the long AND short (who are already cursed with stumps for legs!) legged could all be happy.
My other favorite pair of jeans did in fact come sized waist and inseam. Can't think of the name of the store. Alas, these were purchased in that post-divorce emaciated stage and don't quite fit the way they used to...
Or more places could be like Uniqlo and offer free same-day hemming--with a proper jeans hem, too.
I also seem to recall Express selling short, regular and tall cuts.
I only recently learned that women's jeans don't typically
come in a wide variety of inseams, and I found this bizarre. I mean, I haven't gone around with a measuring tape or anything, but i'm pretty sure I'm able to see differences in leg length across women.
601: It is really bizarre that men get measurements and we get sizes. All women are really all the same height? Or it doesn't matter? Or we're expected to tailor our own clothes? A lot of stuff is even S-M-L. Can you imagine a store offering men's dress shirts in S-M-L?
604: Not in my area, or at least the stores didn't carry them. (I think at one point I found an ankle-length pant there, but it was about 3 sizes too small). I've never been to an Express in a big city - perhaps that is a difference.
Yeah, a quick look at the Express website is promising as far as styles go. Their size chart seems to expect unusually small waists with respect to hips (Express jeans wearers, does this square with your experience?), but lower-rise jeans may make that moot. Possibly I'll go shopping this weekend. Thanks, all.
Technically, "we get sizes." Really, we get rough estimates. I have size 6 pants that fit nicely, size 10 pants that are too tight. The skirt I wore yesterday is a 12. I have one dress in a 4, but that's just plain nonsense.
608: I have no hips at all, and a fair bit of cushion in the waist, but wear a low-rise cut for which the waist-to-hip thing didn't seem an issue.
Express jeans are great, but their dress pants have like a 2-inch zipper, or at least they did recently. I'm hoping that phase passes. I don't really need to wear pants to work that barely rise above my crotch.
Out of all my irrelevancies of today, the only one that went anywhere was the one on bathroom lines?
Can you imagine a store offering men's dress shirts in S-M-L?
There are plenty of stores that do that with button-down shirts, and some that do it for dress shirts. And lots of other men's clothing is sized rather than measured; for a long time I had to resign myself to having sleeves too long for my arms, because in most manufacturer's eyes anyone with shoulders as broad as mine and a gut as big as mine was proportioned differently.
Di, it sounds we're shaped pretty much the same. This gives me hope! There will be jeans!
it sounds s/b it sounds like
This is why I eschew pants and pee on mountain laurels.
Garbardine, do take a look at Uniqlo for jeans. They offer a nice 100% cotton denim and I've found that my pair gives a little where necessary.
To return very (very!) briefly to the mom jeans conversation: when my mother was growing up in the late 50s/early 60s, the standard "give" around the waist was 1" and around the hips was 1.5". That's what you would cut if you were sewing your own pants, and that's what the sizing charts would allow you. When I look back at old family photos from that era, ALL OF THE PANTS look like crotch grabbers. Just, ow. If I'd grown up in that era, pleated pants with elastic waistbands would have looked really good to me.
Also, I know for a fact that my mother embraced the short, feathered mom haircut in large part because her mother has spent her entire life fussing with her permed, dyed, and set hair.
Plus ca change, and all that. I'm sure my children, should I ever have any, will die with shame and scorn at something I find totally normal. If I had to guess, I'd reckon it'll be sensible shoes, like clogs and birkenstocks and saltwater sandals.
616 is pleasantly old school.
Garbardine, do take a look at Uniqlo for jeans.
I am wearing my beloved pair of Uniqlo jeans right now. In the US, however, Uniqlo only exists in NYC, as far as I know.
Talk to me about Uniqlo? I need some jeans, and I've never heard of them.
Hooray for Uniqlo! Good for the short and the tall alike.
I understand that well-stocked Goodwills aren't universal, but often times they are freaking fantastic. Especially for this kind of thing - finding the style that looks good on you. People drop off J. Crew, Gap, Banana Republic, Diesel, and on and on, and you have umpty-million styles to choose from, all in one place.
I know a guy who picked-up protestant golf pants (I'm sure there was a better name) at the Junior League Thrift store. A real steal.
606: I wonder if the relative lousiness of selection in women's sizes might have to do with the fact that women are expected to have much more diverse wardrobes than men. It's one thing to have lots of sizes for a product that will sell hundreds of thousands of copies to guys whose idea of variation in style consists entirely of identical items in different colors and a whole 'nother thing to individually size items being sold in the tens of thousands.
Alternatively, there's my hypothesis that the fashion industry is a conspiracy to make women feel bad, which explains not just the lack of different sizes, but also the fact that the sizes are not even close to standardized, as in Di's 609.
I went to the Wrentham outlets yesterday and got an awesome Banana Republic dress. I think that the original retail was $120, but it had started at $89 at the outlet which is a reasonable price. It was marked down 50% fromaprevious cut to $35, and the whole store was having a 70% off sale. On top of that we made sure to spend the $100 to get the AAA 10% discount, so I got a nice sheath dress which actually fit for $14. Often Banana Republic doesn't fit me well, so I almost didn't go in. It waslined too. I think that it must not havesold, because it didn't fit the typical Banana Republic shopper.
Thanks for the Uniqlo recommendation, Jackmormon et al. I'll have a look. I've been going the thrift-store route recently; no luck yet in actual stores, but I've had a good enough hit rate on Ebay that the cost of a good pair, balanced by the cost of failures, is still a bit less than what I'd pay in a store. (Why failures, when I'm buying the same default jeans every time? Because Gap quality control is atrocious. I have nearly unfastenable jeans, perfect perfect jeans made for my body, and jeans with way too much room in the hips, all in the same size of the same cut, from a period when AFAIK the company's size charts didn't change.) This has kept me clad for a few years, but I would really much rather just buy the pairs that fit.
As for the sizing of women's clothes generally, the S-M-L and numbered-size schemes do allow more variety than you'd think, because of store-to-store variation in the assumed bust/waist/hip proportions (discussed here before). Variety of a maddening sort, leading to pleas like mine in this thread, but variety.
I bought a pair of Benetton pants the other day, and the size was bigger than Ithought it would be, but I fit a bunch ofsmaller stuff in their line. (They're too long,but for $14 I can afford the $8 it costs to get them taken in.) The last time I was in a Benetton the skirts fit really badly--they were uncomfortable and made me look kind of fat, and I'm not fat. They must have been working hard to do it.
Re Express jeans: I used to buy those when there was a Limited/Express store in Harvard Square. I went to their website to look for a local store and found out that they are offering a buy one get a 2nd pair for 50% off sale on their jeans.
GB-- Gap quality control is atrocious, but I think that the problem is much deeper than that. In the early 90's they made really nice 100% merino wool classically preppy sweaters. Now their sweaters are all flimsy. I'm waiting for them to go out of business in a lot of places. Closed already on Newbury Street. Can the Harvard Square location be far behind?
