Breaking down the double standards

I am more than a little amused by yesterday’s column in the Harvard Crimson. Alexandra Petri seems to imply that Drew Faust is a hopeful icon for women because she’s not wearing makeup or trying to appear "effortlessly hot." Well…

First of all, with all due respect, President Faust is 50 years old. If she were trying to be "hot," in any conventional sense, it would be very weird. I could say the same thing for Hillary Clinton, who does wear makeup. Well put-together? Sure. "Effortlessly hot?" Nah.

Secondly, the meat of the column seems concerned that women not only enjoy themselves less than men, but that one of the things they do enjoy is their daily beauty routine. Petri suggests that if women are indeed beautifying themselves for themselves, rather than because of societal burdens, it is "almost more disturbing." I ask, why? As long as we enjoy it, can’t we at least have that enjoyment without feeling guilty about it as well? If an aspiring intellectual such as myself enjoys the act of applying eyeliner, does that somehow make me less of role model for ambitious, brainy young women?

…Okay, maybe I should have used another example. But this isn't about me.

For Petri, the fact that a woman who doesn’t wear makeup can be elected to such a high position is a step forward. And granted, the double standard is evident: imagine if Hillary Clinton got up to the debate platform without a daub of Maybelline. It just wouldn't happen. As is to be expected in a male-dominated society, women are expected to look good and perform; men are judged on far more lenient aesthetic grounds. But is the ultimate ideal, then, for women to regress to the slovenliness typical of most straight American males? Or, rather, should we strive towards equality by requiring men to actually groom themselves in the morning? If it's true that women enjoy getting dolled up so much, it's only fair not to deprive the men of this enjoyment. While I agree with Petri's general point that it's wonderful that Harvard can hire a woman who doesn't wear makeup, I argue that it would be much more progressive to elect a MALE president who DID wear makeup. And much more fun for weird girls like me.

On a related note, I think Petri would find the Archaeology wing to be another beacon of hope: I have noticed I am the only one among us who regularly wears eye makeup to class. And by regularly I mean imperatively, and by eye makeup I mean are you sure you didn’t lose your way to the MCR video shoot. But no one holds it against me. Au contraire, my advisor in particular seems taken with the whole thing. My latest adventure in faculty-fashion interaction transpired yesterday morning, when Noreen tried on my red striped ballet flats and paraded around the lab, showing them off to the older grads. Sometimes I wonder if I was hired solely for the amusement of the sensible adults.

Meanwhile, I’m in the unfortunate stage of post-breakup recovery where I find lots and lots of people attractive. This includes several unnamed women in my department, an extremely androgynous, coffee-drinking boy of dubious consent age sighted at the Coop, and the guy who rang me up at the comic book store when I went to purchase Issue #2 of The Umbrella Academy. Men who work in comic book stores are not supposed to be attractive! Obviously there is something wrong with my brain.

Coming soon: Tori Amos and The New Pornographers live; the new Radiohead album and what it means for the music industry; critical praise of The Umbrella Academy; how Dashboard Confessional proves that sometimes pathos is mightier than talent; and Al Gore as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.