In terms of language, human procreative potency – or lack thereof – seems compared to polarized conditions of fertility in Nature. While women, our life-bearers, have been referred to as being either fertile or infertile, our language seems to be lacking in suitable, positive words that acknowledge a woman’s potency (– sexual or otherwise –) as an attribute of her being. What effect might that have, however, on a woman’s awareness of that quality within her being?

Historically, a woman considered to be biologically infertile was referred to as being ‘barren’; presumably because she was then regarded as ‘unproductive‚’ (rather than simply unable to reproduce.) Moreover, that definition of barren can still be found in modern dictionaries. Allusions and comparisons aside though, a woman is not a verdant tract of land! Neither is she a stretch of desert! Whereas she is of course distinct from a man, she is no more some feature or literal condition of nature than is he.

Distinctiveness a given – it seems accurate to say that both sexes are innately ‘composites’ of the feminine/masculine elements. That understanding and its benefit may or may not be widespread, these days. Nonetheless, in the Western World at least, it is for example far less common for a woman to be vilified or deserted merely for being ‘barren.’ (Pun intended.)  Yet what remains seemingly barren is the stock of adjectives with which to describe human beings as naturally vital, yet complex sexual beings. This seems to leave the way creatively open for the use of slang, (which poses the risk of being derogatory‚ or even sometimes sounding coy.)

What, say, if one were to describe feminine sensuality as lush..? As a noun for example, ‘a lush’ would hardly be complimentary, insinuating as it does a sexually-promiscuous woman. Fortunately the rich vocabulary of the English Language does equip us to describe evocatively, or expressively.  Nonetheless, it does seem rather meager when it comes to actual definitions of sensuousness and vigor that are more distinct to women... Perhaps however this signals that such qualities are intrinsic to both women and men, although their physical expressions of such do differ.

Much may therefore be revealed about predominant attitudes or beliefs that still influence our language. For example, a man's hairiness may be referred to in terms of his being ‘hirsute.’ But as for a woman..? Heaven forbid that she should be likewise hairy! Unless, that is, one is referring to the hair of her head. (In which case the reverse holds that Heaven forbid she should be bald!) A further irony may be found in that ‘lushness’ may serve as a fine compliment to a woman, regarding her head hair. Yet that such a description would hardly be complimentary regarding her facial or bodily hair. (With the possible exception of her eyelashes!)

In resorting to hirsute to describe a woman’s naturally-flourishing hair growth, the word seems to evoke a too pronounced sense of masculinity. Alternatively, perhaps evoking a sense of ‘male drag’ au natural!  Somehow, the word doesn't seem to serve when distinguishing that natural feature in women... Not any better than ‘her suit’ would complement a woman’s physique; should it serve to actually hide her woman’s body!

On that point, whilst it may be unseemly to over-emphasize ones physique in public, (no matter how one is shaped,) it seems excessive for it to be thus hidden. Be that as it may, how many working women daily permit themselves, (or resign themselves) to some lamentable ‘disappearance’ of their natural body shape; often due to masculine-styled uniforms, or alternatively, one-size (fits very few) clothing?

No matter the sort of work she performs‚ a woman is entitled to wear clothing designed with at least some attention to æsthetic quality, and designed to be comfortable for the highly variable feminine body.  Despite that, it seems a norm prevails for many working women that as long as her attire is ‘business-like,’ (often meaning that it adheres to the basic template of a man’s suit,) then her basic ‘acceptability’ is assured. That is, such clothing may enable her to partake of an illusion that she fits in; (pun again.) Although as suggested, suits that don’t suit – ie that neither compliment nor more importantly, complement the natural appearance of her own body – may thereby serve to inhibit a genuine sense of her presence.

Perhaps this creates a perception that she is less of a challenge to a largely masculine-styled working world. Being less visible for what she is may thereby create a perception in everyones’ mind, (including her own,) that she is more compatible with it. After all, didn’t the fictional Professor Higgins complain, “why can't a woman be more like a man?” Never mind that he’d set out to transform the woman in question into a ‘lady.’ Go figure..! (Anyway, Eliza might’ve been a humble flower girl, but ‘flower power’ wasn't yet in vogue!)  However, Eliza and the Professors’ era was of course a different one. These days many women's’ and men's’ roles‚ (and in particular, women's clothing) are not nearly so restrictively defined. Moreover, both sexes are often occupied in identical professions and jobs. So besides a practical necessity for formal uniforms, protective clothing, etc – uniformity of dress where it is inessential might partly suggest lingering restrictions of personal autonomy, or self-expression.

Many of us have been taught that throughout much of recorded human history, womens’ considerable involvement in the fields of business, commerce, science and numerous other so-called ‘male’ professions is relatively recent. Therefore it is possible to see how a woman, in such working contexts, may have a harder time bringing through the expression, and realization, of her intrinsic self. Yet if she could, then the breadth of her personal potential might be better liberated through knowing she need be ‘less like a man’ (– to reverse the phrase! –) and more like herself... however she should perceive herself to be.

One might wonder therefore what ‘fearful’ – or rather – what authentic power might be signalled should women determine neither, say, to ‘power dress’, nor to conform even to some other peer-pressured expectation. On reflection, might a fear be that unsupressed womanly power derives from more than their unique biological role, (that women might or might not possess, or choose to express,) but innately from that very fruitfulness and range of being which thrives as Nature... as the Earth, herself? And if so, would a thriving, abundant and fruitful womanly empowerment cause mayhem in the workplace?!

Rather like outfits, a variety of women's personas can be likened to symbolically feminine cards in a traditional tarot deck. For example, the High Priestess and The Empress being truly powerful representations of womanhood. As for Cinderella – ie the mythic Moon Maiden – it seems that she got out of her rags and into her ‘glad rags’‚ so to speak, when she’d evolved to a certain level of self-integration. It was this that had needed to occur, and not simply that some prince had been desperate to marry her! (Or perhaps he rather liked her shoes... but couldn’t fit into them!)

Such as the above women's’ personas are ‘pictures’ of empowerment. It is personal empowerment, ie inner-self empowerment, that women need... not denial of their ‘feminine-masculine’ inner selves. Yet as earlier suggested, it seems that womanliness, very ordinarily expressed in a woman’s body shape, does endure ‘invisibility’ by wayof being draped (ie dressed) in shapeless attire. And if not shapeless, then to other extremes. For example, as have periodically been popular; jackets padded to accentuate, (or else compensate for) muscle-packed shoulders that a woman doesn’t necessarily have – or need!

Appealing though such fashions, (uniforms?) may be, the effect of their ‘modifications’ could also be de-stabilizing to her self-image. So it’s clear that an intuitive yet common sense balance needs to be sought. For instance, brazen immodesty tips such a balance towards extreme. Women need not go out of their way to ‘bare all’ in any public setting, anymore than male construction workers ought to work semi-naked; unmindful of whether that is distasteful or even intimidating to others. There is of course a time and a place for everything.

Conversely, it is unlikely that one must be excessively modest or prudish in ones dress, (unless for example it’s a requirement of ones vocation, or else religion.) Balance is applicable to both women and men. Hence both can be dressed in a manner that accords with the activity or work they’re performing. And if it’s a boiler suit or else, say, jeans and a t-shirt that are appropriate – then appropriate those are!

So with the exception of any specific requirements – if a woman feels that she can really be herself whether she chooses, for example, the practicality of a boiler suit, the comfort of a sari or the mystique perhaps of a kimono – then that is what counts. She may then even find that instead of shedding many pounds in weight, (whose loss may or may not be healthy,) she may seek to shed the ‘inner clothes’ which mask, repress or demote the Self within.

F. Haykin © 2011