Biddies: Revisted

    I have come to realize that the flapper's of the 1920's and the "biddies" of today's society have quite a bit in common.  I'm not positive I could say that the short skirts of our time are a radical gesture, but this type of dress definitely makes a statement; not up on a soap box, not at the table with parents, but in everyday public lives.  These women walk on the sidewalks of our towns, in the malls, and into the public eye, making statements without words.  This, I wouldn't say is a movement, but a demonstration of femininity.  In a time when we are told that wearing a certain type of clothing gives one a reputation, many "biddies" defy the expectations regardless of what others think.
    Just like the flappers brought up the lengths of their skirts, women today are following suit. Though the preferable body back then was a boyish slim figure, today women want curves in all the right places.  Women would use the fast selling cosmetics to enhance features, and still do so today (granted some people take it too far and attempt to remake their entire face).  The flappers were learning to "live their own lives" by not following the societal expectations of what a proper woman should look like.  They also wanted to play the part of "irresponsible play-mates", which in turn allowed them to fall out of the position of "guardians of morality."  I feel as though women are still looked at to set standard morals for their children, they are the foundations of a family. I don't believe that by wearing certain clothing one's morals completely subside, leaving her completely demoralized.  Clothing just doesn't have that type of effect on someone.  An attitude change of an entire group of women is what makes morals change, not just by shortening a skirt or two.  Now women look the part of of the "irresponsible playmate" do so only for the looks, they don't necessarily play the part.  Women today use the sense of independence created from the revolution flappers were involved in to take authority over themselves.  They take hold of femininity in a very sexual way because feminism is a very sexual subject.
   The class reaction to the word "biddie" was exactly what I expected.  People have a certain connotation that if a girl is overly sexy that she could not possibly want anything but for a man to come jump on his opportunity.  I, however, after thinking about it don't think this way at all. I believe wearing things that show off one's body is extremely empowering, and has nothing to do with other people, only with yourself.  I used Eve Ensler's "My Short Skirt" in my other blog post but didn't really go into the words of the monologue.  I believe this monologue has a lot to say about how women dress.  In one part the narrator says:
          It is not an invitation
              a provocation
               an indication
               that I want it
                or give it
             or that I hook.
The words pretty much sum it up.  Waring a short skirt does not simple prove that a girl is asking, or more so begging, for male attention. The next chunk is what really makes me  understand this monolouge.

My short skirt, believe it or not
has nothing to do with you.
 
My short skirt
is about discovering
the power of my lower calves
about cool autumn air traveling
up my inner thighs
about allowing everything I see
or pass or feel to live inside.
 
My short skirt is not proof
that I am stupid
or undecided
or a malleable little girl.

This part also goes out to the fact that women who wear short skirts do it only for themselves.  Since when does wearing a certain type of clothing make a person less intelligent or one who has loose morals?  I believe that hose who judge a person's intelligence based on the way they dress is a very closed minded way to think.  I don't believe a girl who dresses conservatively is more intelligent than anyone else, but a girl who dresses more provocatively is automatically assumed as "dumb, stupid, and an idiot" as I heard one classmate say.  The negative connotations towards the intelligence of women based on how they dress seems to be only one sided. The term "biddie" has often been interchanged with "slut."  I find this very interesting since the word biddie was taken out of context to describe a girl who looks a certain way when the actual definition says nothing about appearance at all.  The word slut, then, is often used to describe or as another term for biddie which also seems pretty moronic to me.  So really who is the unintelligible one?  The person who takes hold of their sexuality or the one who criticizes her for doing so?
 

Whitmann Levi's Commerical

There is a sign, “America”, broken and in the water, flickering, showing that America’s ideals of equality as a nation are being broken, as is the American dream.  Fireworks like the fourth of July to remember Independence Day, to remember what this country was founded on.  African American girl walking in a dingy neighborhood (“center of equal daughters”) is this really equal? Next shot is a man probably a higher up on government in a really nice car and people are attempting to attack it. (“equal sons”) (All alike endear’d) All are loved equally? Young girl is seen as “grown” because of the things she has experienced living in a not so great neighborhood and the office or government man as “ungrown”, he has narrow minded ideals and probably never comes out from behind his desk to experience the real world.  How are these two people equal? Mind you they are both not wearing Levi jeans. “Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable (young boy looking broken), rich (at this point it is a young African American boy who looks like he too is not in the best neighborhood, yet he is rich with knowledge that he has learned from where he lives)  all of the pictures depicted here have people in Levi jeans, which allows them to take on each of these profound words. “Perennial with the earth, with Freedom, Law, and Love” (interracial couple kissing) yet again all these people are wearing Levi Jeans.  America sign shown again with fireworks and a clip of people running with a sign that says “Go Forth”.  This add is advertising for a better, more equal life.  If one were to put on the “magical” Levi jeans their life would transform to one that was full of equality and the life that many set out to America to claim, not one of brutality or hostility.  These jeans will make you rich, maybe not in the sense of monetary value, but with knowledge of how a nation is supposed to be, how you should be treated and respected.  Levi’s presents the type of like one expects when one thinks of America, not the reality.  It shows that if the girl in the dress and the man in the suit were to wear Levi jeans they would be taken out of the lives they were living and be transformed to people who were free of all the burdens they were bearing.  They would be able to actually be equal with others and life a free life.

There has been much criticism about this advertisement because people say that it is a disgrace to use Whitmann to try and push product sales.  I find this a very close minded way of looking at it.  I find that Whitmann was seen as the American poet and Levi’s is trying to be the American brand of jeans (the red tag Levi’s that are made in America not the yellow tag ones that are from China),  In the preface to Leaves of Grass he said “The proof of a poet is that his country absorbs him as affectionately as he has absorbed it.”  I find that this add does Whitmann justice and works towards ideals of equality that he knew this country was based on.  Not only did it follow some of Whitmann’s ideals, but it also brought his poetry to the masses.  Younger generations seem not to have much contact with poetry and by putting it in the media, with Whitmann’s real voice on a wax recording, is an amazing way to get poetry into the ears of young Americans.

Whitmann Levi's "Go Forth" Commerical