UBT: David Harbour’s Non-Apology Apology

Here’s a shaggy dog story about why I wear mini skirts, groovy boots and lipstick but am not actually a “ho-bag” lol.

I was always a huge schmuck magnet, especially in my teens and twenties. I got street-harassed everywhere– often in a cruel and aggressive way– by both men and women. But my attempts to use protective coloring such as nerdy, boring or gender-neutral garb like oversized t’s, button downs, hoodies and trainers and no makeup never helped and almost seemed to make it worse, even dangerous.

Then one day my brilliant, funny, thoughtful mother had a philosophical revelation and recommended a way to stop it. She said that, back when she was a young professional in NYC, she figured out that, when men harass women on the street, their aggression isn’t really aimed at the women themselves but at the men who presumably “own” these women. I ran my mother’s brainstorm past a fashion model friend and she resoundingly agreed, saying, “Never look like you need anything from anyone! It’s like a kick-me sign on your back!” and “Predators love vulnerability.”

But I think my mother’s take was even more to the point. At least when it comes to male sexual aggression, basically the point of screaming sexual comments/slurs at random women or sexually intimidating/dissing them isn’t primarily to intimidate the individual woman but so that she’ll run home to her daddy/boyfriend/husband-owner and cry about what those bad men did or said. Then the “owner” will feel violated and have an ineffectual, helpless meltdown over it. Which– yay– provides a sense of victory and satisfaction to damaged men who mortally hate their own fathers.

To misogynist men, women barely count as human and are seen mostly as footballs in the endless rivalry with other men. But when it comes to female aggression, I think it’s more about finding fellow female scapegoats for all the hurt, fear, betrayal and anger caused by “dah patriarchy.” But women tend to be highly concerned with social power and will only openly verbally attack perceived “rivals” who can’t bite back in a social status sense. So looking “socially connected/statusy” can sometimes deter more open expressions of mean girl sh*t.

So my mother said I should dress like my “owner” has the power and wealth to either get the offenders fired or assassinated or ousted from the social fold.

I tried out different styles over time that I could scrape together with some fashion training on a budget: “lady DA,” “Hamptons yogazilla,” “preppy downtown princess,” “grunge jetsetter.” But eventually I figured out that cosplaying as “tasteful rock star wife” had the best effect. So lots of legs and lips but natural hair and no visible cleavage (oh dear, too “slutty”) became the standard armor.

It probably helps that I’m good at finding couture on a budget to get that “stealth wealth” look but I have no idea why this presentation works, only that it does. Presenting this way seems to cause “hushed deference” which sure beats constant negging, especially when I became a “disability mom” and had to advocate for a child with severe health issues and learning and behavioral challenges. That’s actually when appearance and perception became life and death because my child was being mistreated, deprived and excluded proportionate to social perceptions of my relative powerlessness as a mother. So I don’t really “dress to impress” as much as to intimidate (but, bonus, actually nice women aren’t put off and just want to know where I got that cool skirt).

I know that’s a pretty depressing commentary on our species. Anyway, like you, I tend to take a pragmatic view of why women dress and present in certain ways. It can sometimes reflect on character but doesn’t always. To me, it’s all battle dress because there’s a bloody war out there.