Does showing off require suffering?

It's been months of red carpets. An excess of catwalks and an excess of discomfort. Not only the discomfort generated by some of the award winners' speeches, but also by the outfits women choose, which continue to present images unheard of in the 21st century. But if we're being strict, in the 21st century, the world is also governed by ultra-violent narcissists who are leaving a landscape that hasn't changed in centuries. And since little more can be said about the brutality of a system that allows the bombing of whatever a few wretches fancy, and since we seem to have to accept violence as a necessary evil in this rotten world of self-interest, let's turn the tables and look at what is apparently permanent, and what many people consider a free choice. And they're right. Because women's formal attire is the perfect symbol to explain where we still are. And the damage it does isn't comparable to war, but it still leaves many dead. It's the imprisonment of the body. Of the standards of beauty. Of scandal disguised as glamour.

Men have pockets and can move. It seems obvious, but it isn't. Women don't have pockets and can't move. And some of those who can move have such long trains that someone has to escort them to avoid an accident. They all laugh and seem happy to participate in the game. Most are thin. Some are so thin it's impossible to imagine them eating. To fit into these dresses and to prevent their abdominal bulges from showing, their diets must be strict to the point of illness. The obsession with being thin. Skinny, as they used to say. Then we shouldn't be surprised by the disgusted faces of clothing models. But why must fashion be linked to women's discomfort? And why don't most women rebel against this discomfort? There's a middle ground between men's fashion—wearing tracksuits, sneakers, and footballer-style haircuts all day—and women's fashion—high heels, heavy makeup, outrageous nails, and super-long hair, all cut the same. Since when is elegance associated with discomfort? If anything defines elegance, it's the movement of the body. How can you claim to be elegant if you can't even move in a suit that only allows you to waddle like a penguin? What's elegant about that? And what about the fight against aging? How long should we keep pretending we're not getting old? We don't need to celebrate every new wrinkle or every gray hair, but to allow creams to continue being labeled anti-aging... The only anti-aging thing that comes to mind is death.A reality, on the other hand, that always ends up arriving.

Katharine Hepburn popularized the use of trousers for women in the 1930s, defending their comfort over conventions. When journalist Barbara Walters asked her in the 1980s if she owned a skirt, she replied that she did. And she added: "I'll wear it to your funeral." Sometimes I think we'll continue to die watching women mourn themselves because it gives them the feeling that it will make them more loved. It's a patternAnd, quite literally, it's a pattern that drags on to the point of tedium. But the good news is that it can be broken. Hepburn never lost interest in being comfortable. Nor did we stop admiring her for it. Wearing trousers wasn't any less of a woman for her. On the contrary. She was free. Which is how all women should feel.