OP/ED: Sorry Christine, but sometimes 'not nice' is the way to go
By Kyra Hoggan
I’m writing a column further to Christine’s column (http://castlegarsource.com/news/oped-looks-werent-deceiving-you-deceived-yourself-21868#.UJw81m80WSo), not because I disagree with her, but because I totally agree and don’t think she takes it far enough.
Christine is a fundamentally nice person. I am not. The issue of stifling people’s self-expression through rigid social more is, to me, one requiring a less nice, less gentle hand – largely because it offends me beyond words.
If we lived in a society in which all the males had closely-cropped hair, chinos and button-down dress shirts while the women carefully kept their skirts below the knee and sported hairdos similar to the current First Lady’s, I think I’d want to kill myself.
Do I understand people who judge my son because he has dyed-black hair, a black leather jacket, black jeans, and – when he’s feeling particularly confident – black eyeliner? I think I do.
Do I have any tolerance for someone who judges him based on that alone, without taking five seconds to see how personable and friendly he is; how kind to animals; how much he gives back to his community, his family and his friends?
Not one iota. In fact, I think they’re shallow, rigid, self-righteous fanatics of whom my family is well rid.
I’m not talking about over-the-top, total-body tattoos with spikes sticking out from all over one’s face, or people who choose not to engage in personal hygiene, or anything extreme – I’m talking about fairly simple choices like long hair, Mowhawks, lots of make-up or lack thereof, or perhaps a woman’s skimpy clothing.
I often wear somewhat revealing clothes when it’s hot out. No, not because I want to attract other women’s husbands for wild, hedonistic sex – I do it because it’s … wait for it … hot outside. Anyone who assumes otherwise has their head far enough up their posterior that I’m not sure how they’re able to see what I’m wearing in the first place.
I mean, seriously, get over yourself (and rethink your marriage if you think my skirt length could in any way jeopardize same. Really.)
I get the argument that appearance gives social cues about how to interpret someone – but to limit that interpretation to appearance is venal, small-minded, and inexcusable in the enlightened New Millennium. In this, as in most things, context is key.
The tattooed biker Christine spoke of – are you seeing him after dark in a poorly-lit alley, and is he glowering at you? Then by all means, be afraid of him (although, what the hell are YOU doing skulking around in dark alleys in the first place?)
Or did you see him smiling a ‘good morning’ at you while he bought his coffee at Timmy’s? Because if you’re scared of him then, I’m sorry, but you’re just a moron who reads the first sentence of a book and assumes he can, from that, infer the plotline of the entire novel. And the only person who loses as a result of that conceit is you.
It’s exactly because of people that shallow that we have laws regarding freedom of expression – those laws are an acknowledgement that some people expect – nay, demand – conformity merely because someone else chose a look they don’t like – they refuse to believe that just because they find it unappealing, someone else might not and must, therefore, be sporting said look to attract attention, send a message, or rebel. (Like women don’t buy gorgeous, expensive dresses to attract attention, and corporate men don’t buy power suits to send a message. Please. There’s nothing wrong with attracting attention, sending a message, or even rebelling – so I reject any demand we do those things in the ways a handful of people proscribe.)
These kind of people turn it around on you, too – if you conform too much, you’ll take it in the teeth just the same. They’ll say you’re trampy because you wear too much make-up, a clothes-horse because you’re too up on recent fashions, or a prude because you wear ankle-length skirts.
There’s no winning with people who make assessments based on outward appearances alone – so I’ve never encouraged my son to try. I let him know the potential consequences of choosing outside the social norm in what can be a self-righteous and thoughtless world, then I let him have at, with whatever look he feels best expresses his tastes. And if people choose to think he’s a thug or a delinquent, he may miss out on a friend or a job …. but I think not a very good friend, and not a very good employer, so he’s still okay.
He misses out on very little, while they miss out on a smart, engaging, dedicated, funny, talented kid with a huge heart, who just doesn’t happen to like the same clothes they do.
So if you look at my son (or anyone else), and choose to infer some underlying message in their refusal to look just like you, make the message this – this person is creative enough to think outside the box; courageous enough to determine his own values even when they don’t fit with the norm; and societally aware enough to know that your views of fashion aren’t his problem.
There. Rant over.
Comments