Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe
One of the most frequent questions I get as a stylist is "Do I wear pantyhose or not?" I say not--hose is a tool of the patriarchy. I am only partially joking. Some women (especially older ones) like them because they hide imperfections, they can help prevent blisters, and they might even keep your legs warm. But they're uncomfortable and expensive, and a pair lasts all of two wearings if you're lucky. Can you see men putting up with that? (Tights and sexy stockings are another story.)
This article in Doublex.com, Michelle, Put on Some Pantyhose (in reference to Mrs. Obama's perfectly reasonable penchant for going bare-legged), makes some interesting points, but I'm still not convinced.
And then there was this: "What the Obama-struck fail to acknowledge is that there is nothing casual—or natural—about a bare leg in 2009. . . . Going bare means a woman must consider waxing, exfoliation, firming creams, anti-cellulite and stretch-mark treatments, regular pedicures, and salon spray tans or self-tanners—yes, even for women of color."
Um, what? Are our legs in their semi-natural state so horrible? Imperfections such as a little scar here and there, a few spider veins, or winter-pale skin are going to send our friends and coworkers screaming from the room in horror? I'm more freaked out by guys' hairy legs in shorts.
Don't give in to this new front in the war on womanhood. You don't have to look Photoshop-perfect to appear in public.