A good friend of mine once told me that she enjoyed visiting Georgetown, but she was glad to leave because the lack of sweatpants on campus made her feel uncomfortable.
I could not agree more. On days I dare to wear sweatpants, I get asked by people whether I’m okay, whether I’m sick or if I pulled an all-nighter. Other days, I manage to make it through unscathed until I pick up a campus newspaper and find myself told that I should dress like Deloitte’s watching.
Yes, I’m alright. No, I’m not sick. I slept seven hours last night, thank you. And heaven help me—heaven help us all—if I ever end up working at Deloitte.
My sweatpants are a political statement. Next to my “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” t-shirt, they might be the most politically charged item of clothing I own. Over three years of being ground down by Georgetown’s culture of “Western Business Attire” and “Appropriate Dress Required,” my sweatpants have slowly become a two-fold symbol of protest.
To begin with, most women’s clothing does not have pockets. My favorite pair of jeans has stitching along my hip to suggest room for a phone, but it is a bald-faced lie: there is no capacity to hold more than a fuzz of lint. The fashion industry long ago decided that pockets on women’s clothing are unflattering and unfeminine. Extra fabric around your thighs? But it would ruin your figure, darling! I am supposed to care more about my status as a woman than my iPhone accessibility.
This is wildly impractical. It means I cannot leave the house without my purse, ever, because I have nowhere else to put my things. To quote a recent article by Tanya Basu, “A man can simply swipe up his keys and iPhone on the way to a rendezvous with co-workers and slip them into his pocket. A woman on the way to that same meeting has to either carry those items in her hand, or bring a whole purse with her—a definitive, silent sign that she is a woman.”
I cannot escape the purse and its connotations. People assume that women carry purses because ladies are so much less practical than men and want all sorts of unnecessary, hyper-feminine, frivolous things: lipstick, blush, eyeliner, nail-file, hand-sanitizer, bobby pins, hair bands, aspirin, gum, etc. I won’t deny that sometimes I need an extra hair band, but on the whole my purse contains my keys, wallet, phone, and old receipts. Not that anyone will ask what’s in my purse, of course. Society has already told them, and I have already been judged.
My sweatpants, gently gender-neutral and—unlike my jeans, dresses, leggings, and skirts—have gloriously large pockets. They are recklessly extravagant in their use of fabric. I can fit an entire coffee mug inside them. Freedom! Beautiful freedom! Leaving the house with nothing in my hands, no purse strap chaining me to the patriarchy. My phone in one pocket, wallet and keys in another, I can speed-walk without my purse bumping against my thigh or hitching my left my shoulder so the strap won’t fall off.
The days that I wear sweatpants are often days I need or desire this freedom of mobility. So if you think I look like I’m not trying or don’t care, I can only say that I put more thought into my choice of pants than the guy wearing a black-suit-blue-tie combo around campus.That said, sometimes I wake up in the morning and decide, “Wow! I feel like not trying. I don’t care.” And on those days, too, I wear my sweatpants.
And no matter what I am wearing, I expect to be listened to in class. After all, I listen to Georgetown folk despite the boat shoes and Nantucket Reds. I simply ask for the same courtesy.
I demand to be taken seriously regardless of the clothes I wear or the clothes I can afford, regardless of anyone who thinks my clothes are respectable or whether I’ve decided today is a perfect day to wear my spaceship earrings. I demand to be taken seriously because I am a human, and if my sweatpants affect how you treat me, I do not think the problem is on my end.
To every Georgetown student who has worn their sweats as a celebration of their magnificent pockets, or because of their outstanding level of comfort, or because they woke up and just don’t care: onwards, my friends. Let us not be deterred by Deloitte’s watchful eye from across the Potomac. We wait patiently for the day that all clothing decisions are equally respected, but until then, stay strong. You are not alone.
Looking like a refugee from an outlet mall does not respect your own potential much less acknowledge the serious purpose of our fellow students, faculty and neighbors. Indeed, the privilege of attending Georgetown (not to mention other institutions of higher learning) — a privilege that puts you in the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% (and so on) not just nationally but globally — that is, of some 7 billion people on the planet, or of the 300+ million Americans, or anywhere in between, and you have access to resources to explore, discern, learn, better your life and those of so many others–resources that are virtually unimaginable to anyone but the tiniest sliver of humanity you now occupy.
Recall the abysmal attrition rate in high schools alone, much less the fact that the majority of enrolled students at all US colleges and universities–state, private, community, or four year– never even graduate (and of those who do, the majority really have learned nothing either about critical thinking, intellectual stimulation, becoming socialized and a contributing (enhancing) member of society. Is this tied to your “costume?” I believe history, and common sense, and innumerable studies, show that is it. This does not mean you have to shop at Neiman Marcus, or sport your Ralph Lauren, or look like the proverbial model stepping of the pages of Vogue or GQ. It means you dress to respect yourself, to show your serious intent, and to give you colleagues on campus some insight into your person and your persona–which evolves, one hopes, over the years. In the same way “you are what you eat” or “you are who your friends are” tends to become ever more correct over the years, those among you with any interest in improving yourself as well as improving something in the world around you, should be aware that, like the Facebook pictures that will never disappear, image and first impressions count. Don’t think of it as following the crowd. Dare to be different. Dare to declare your defiance of a declining and decadent campus culture of slovenly somnolence. Save those sweats for late night bull sessions in the dorm, or for putting some miles in on the track.
Hoya Saxa–not Hoya Sweats.
Inigo C, MBA, L, LL.M.
You have missed the point. Julia is calling for the world to change. She would like people to stop correlating appearance with character. Your response makes it clear that you judge a person’s seriousness by what they wear, but you have not made an argument for why judging someone upon their appearance is rational. Whether a woman wears sweatpants or a dress does not change her ability to be serious, it changes her ability to be taken seriously. And yes you are correct, that is the way of the world. But is that right? No, because appearance does not necessarily indicate anything! Why is a woman more “self-respecting” when she wears the dress as opposed to the sweatpants? Neither is more self-respecting, but this stereotype continues because society likes the way she looks better in a dress. Your response makes this perspective evident, but it is not justified. Our culture was not handed to us by God. Our culture was made over time by the voices and actions of many individuals. That means that as individuals we can change it. Let us work towards a society where all people are treated with equal respect regardless of their appearance.
Furthermore, dressing people in the way you deem “respectable” is not going to change they way they learn about critical thinking, intellectual stimulation, and becoming a socialized and contributing member of society. Unfortunately, I think the problems in the american education system run deeper.
I think the piece is actually about pocket politics….like, put more pockets in women’s clothing besides just sweats. This is a real thing: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/
“To every Georgetown student who has worn their [sic] sweats as a celebration of their magnificent pockets, or because of their outstanding level of comfort, or because they woke up and just don’t care: onwards, my friends. Let us not be deterred by Deloitte’s watchful eye from across the Potomac. We wait patiently for the day that all clothing decisions are equally respected, but until then, stay strong. You are not alone.”
Self-parody.
Lol I know you’re trying to be snarky and just tear her down, but “their” was right.
then “has” would be wrong . . . .
Of course, I will acknowledge that “his” as a pronoun signifying “his or her” is falling out of favor, so “their” may be considered to be correct a few decades from now, but “their” isn’t right at this point.
I am not trying to tear her down–she does a pretty good job of that herself. This is silliness on stilts.
Gender-neutral pronouns are integral to our society. I dearly hope that I do not have to explain that to a fellow student here, as this school prides itself on its well-educated, globally aware students, but please don’t hesitate to ask for help seeing beyond your own, comfortable world.
Here is just one quick example: 41% of gender-nonconforming people attempt suicide at least once – before their 18th birthday. Never disrespect anyone for supporting our identities.
Oh, good grief. “Their” clearly is incorrect here. “His or her” would work. I don’t see how pointing that out would cause someone to launch into the whole gender-nonconforming issue, unless you’re just spoiling for the chance to proclaim your offendedness. Personally, I treat everyone with respect on that front.
I’m sorry i snapped; it’s always a shock to be reminded that our language denies the existence of non-binary people like me. Let me try to explain: grammar rules have, throughout the history of the English language, been dictated by wealthy, white, cisgender men. Thus, the language has evolved unnaturally to exclude minorities. Calling the use of singular “they” wrong is the same as calling African American Vernacular English wrong – it denies the humanity of those who do not or cannot adhere to the arbitrarily declared rules.
And to the OP, I’m sorry to have to distract from your article. sweatpants are indeed divine.