-
Rox Populi says to bookmark this Obsidian Wings post for next year’s Koufaxes. I think the post – a critique of hatred in political thinking – is terrific. I understand why the author chose to make the post so partisan, but I wish she hadn’t; it would have been a more challenging post for left-wingers if it has been less one-sided.
-
Also on Obsidian Wings, Hilzoy has a good post, set off by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to consider the issue, describing Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law.
-
Meanwhile, in Florida, high school administrators consider it their job to maintain gender norms. A female student has been banned from the yearbook for wearing a tux in her yearbook photo. Thank goodness the principal isn’t wasting his time and energy worrying about, you know, grades and learning and trivialities like that. Feministing has the story.
-
Ann Althouse argues that “road kill candy” is actually more P.C. than animal crackers.
-
In a post on The Paris Project, Jennelle describes a woman who led a prayer at her church wearing a thin white t-shirt and no bra. I was struck by a male comment-writer’s reaction (quoted by Hugo): “I don’t know any heterosexual man whose head doesn’t turn when they see [female] nipples. They are like kryptonite to men.” So nipples cause slow, painful death for heterosexual men? Damn. No wonder the law requires nipples to be covered.
-
Regarding the same topic, Hugo writes (and I agree): “As I’ve written before, this myth of male weakness is misogynist and misandrist simultaneously (a neat trick). It assumes that men are simply incapable of self-control and focus in the face of sexual arousal, and it assumes that because of that weakness, women have to do the work of making public places ‘safe’ for their brothers.”
-
Mouse Words, Dr. B’s Blog and Feministing report on attempts in Texas and Kansas to take away the right to privacy from anyone with ovaries.
-
Robert Hayes calls this picture “Escher Does Legos,” but I think “Legos Do Escher” would be more accurate. Anyhow, it’s really cool.
-
Sexism-in-everyday-life department, from Trish Wilson: Dr. Eric Bressler polled 150 students about what they meant by a “sense of humour”. He found that “for a woman, a GSOH means someone who makes her laugh. For a man, it means someone who laughs at his jokes.”
-
Over on Left2Right, Don Herzog documents how little conservative reactions to feminism have changed since 1792.
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
If you show me a shapely nipple or tit, it will be distracting. That has nothing to do with my self-control. Self-control is what determines whether I shout “wow, boobies!” and start gratifying myself, or ask the owner of the nipple in question for sex, or stare straight ahead with a vein throbbing in my forehead, or relax and think “yeah, it’s a boob, so?” and move on. My self control will dictate my actions, not whether or not I’m distracted. The distraction is (for me at least, and I suspect for most men) automatic. That’s our culture’s sexual socialization; breasts=sexy. Other cultures will have different signifiers, but they’ll all have something that will do it.
I’m not assuming that women have to do the work to make public spaces “safe” for men. However, as adults we are all responsible for the social signals we choose to send. I once had a girlfriend who became extremely aroused if I murmured in her ear. (Didn’t much matter what I murmured.) Me acknowledging and respecting that my actions impacted her arousal level (and thus her distraction), and behaving appropriately in varying social contexts, was maturity – not misogyny/misandry. I wouldn’t be free-and-liberated if I murmured in her ear in the middle of an important business meeting; I would be an asshole.
In the context cited in the thread you link, Amp, the woman in question was at an inter-denominational Christian evangelical meeting. As a Christian, she should have felt herself constrained by Paul’s dictum: if we know that some action, in and of itself harmless, nonetheless has the potential to cause someone else to enter a state of sin, we should refrain from doing it. (If I can drink responsibly, but I know that seeing me drink will lead Barry to engage in binge drinking which will end with him cheating on his wife and beating his children, I should not drink around Barry.) She knows perfectly well that her bobbing nipples are going to generate “impure thoughts” in the minds of some of her co-religionists, and she knows perfectly well that those people will consider those impure thoughts sinful.
We all have a degree of power over the sexual reactions of other humans. Asking people to use that power in a responsible fashion is not, or ought not to be, out of bounds.
Robert, because you put limits on how much self-control you’re willing to exert doesn’t change any of these points.
Amanda, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
Are you suggesting that my then-girlfriend’s inability to not become aroused at a particular stimulus was a failure of self-control on her part?
Judging from the latest go-round from Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias about how Women Are Too Delicate for Politics and Women Just Aren’t Funny, I’d say liberal male attitudes toward women haven’t really changed that much since the 18th century, either.
In fact, Kevin Drum’s postulation that women are above all that nasty political fighting was exactly the same argument given to deny women the vote.
But I must say it’s nice to see such a rare bipartisan agreement on somthing.
I think there’s an important difference between (1) dressing in a way that some people might consider provocative and (2) a deliberate, targeted provocation such as murmuring in someone’s ear.
OK, Q. Pheevr, what is the difference?
Of course, as an adult man functioning in an unequal society, that’s easy for you to say. It’s pretty easy for a guy to figure out how to dress in a neutral, inoffensive way that will not send the wrong signals. For women, that’s a full-time job. It’s not just whether you wear a bra. It’s whether you wear a smooth “t-shirt bra” with that particular shirt or whether an ordinary bra will do. It’s whether a given outfit calls for a beige or a black bra. It’s whether you need to wear the strapless bra, the backless bra, the halter bra, the racerback bra, or the bra with the widely-spaced straps. It’s how you launder the bra, because bras are delicate and expensive, and how often you launder it to make sure that you are able to wear the particular (beige, t-shirt, backless, halter, etc.) bra when you want to or need to wear the outfit with which it goes. And that’s just bras. There are similar dilemmas about shoes, about skirts, about hairstyles, about every single aspect of our appearance.
For you to send the wrong signals, you have to whisper in someone’s ear. All I have to do is forget to do laundry and end up with nothing clean but a white shirt and a black bra.
Or perhaps he referred to the effects of pink kryptonite which we learn of in Supergirl Volume 3 No. 79? Because that would also be interesting.
[Goes back to her geekish haunts]
Sally, does the unfairness of a proposition bear upon its truth?
Only if you care about fairness, I guess. For instance, there is a notoriously mysoginistic professor in my department who doesn’t like being challenged by women. If a woman makes a comment that challenges his take on something, the signal that he gets is “that woman has contempt for my authority.” If a man makes exactly the same comment, the signal that he gets is “that fine young man is not afraid to think for himself.” Apparently, you think that the way to deal with that is for male students to engage in exciting discussion and for female students to cast our eyes demurely on the ground and agree with everything he says, for fear of sending the wrong signals. After all, we’re adults, and we’re responsible for the signals that we send. But non-reactionary people, I think, will realize that the problem is with how the signals are read, not with the behavior of the people supposedly sending the signals.
Whether you care about “fairness” could certainly bear on whether you approved of a particular proposition. But how does it bear on whether the proposition is true?
Your professor is an ass. Does his asshood exculpate his students of responsibility for their own behavior? Nor for HIS behavior – which is appalling – but for their own? I believe you are conflating outcome with action – male and female students engaging in the same behavior are coming up with differential outcomes. To my mind, that indicates a problem with the process (the professor, in this case), but does not relate to the question of whether students are responsible for their own behavior. The problem on the professor’s end of the equation doesn’t change moral law for the people on the student’s end – although it might advocate for a change of scenario.
Right. And when men go out braless, when their nipples show, when they do not put much if any thought into their underwear, they get a very different outcome than when women do that. Same behavior, different outcome.
The difference is that you acknowledge that women have an equal right to speak their minds, so if that upsets a man, it’s his fault. You do not acknowledge that women have an equal right not to be judged as sexual objects (or not to be forced to spend huge amounts of time and money on an “appropriate” wardrobe), so if a woman’s clothes upset a man, that’s her fault. “Truth,” to you, means “how I, personally, think the world ought to work.” “Moral law” means “what I want people to do.”
That’s fine, but you can’t assume that other people will share your vision of a just world, especially since we’re the ones shelling out huge amounts of money on many different kinds of underwear.
I am not at all interested in questions of “fault” in this context; you are attributing things to me that I have not said and do not think.
If a woman’s clothes upset a man, that is his problem, not hers.
However, we are each responsible for our own actions, and as social beings, we must take into account that we live in a community. That we have a right to do something does not mean that it is always wise, or moral, to do it.
This is pretty much the opposite of what I mean.
Truth to me means things that are operative without regard to how people feel about them. People who have been socialized to sexually respond to a particular stimulus will respond to that stimulus – whether I wish them to do so, or not. E=mc^2 whether I approve of nuclear power or not.
Moral law is a bit trickier, but I don’t think we’re going to have a productive conversation on that one.
I don’t believe that anyone has that right.
We have the right to be treated with respect and dignity, but as a sexual species, we’re all going to be judged as sexual objects constantly.
If you have an instance of someone in my culture being forced to spend time or money on a certain mode of dress, please cite it. I would find that outrageously offensive.
However, I suspect that by “forced” you mean “having to live with the consequences of choices”. Everybody is in that boat.
And I believe we must take into account that the community has been structured in fundamental ways to benefit some people more than others. I believe that inequality is evil and that to uphold that inequality, either by sins of commission or omission, is also evil. I believe that when you take community norms at face value, when you refuse to ask how they came to be and whom they benefit, you are behaving in an immoral fashion. I believe that when faced with a community norm that upholds inequality, the moral response to is try to change it, rather than to expect the oppressed group to try to accomodate it.
We’ve just been discussing a way that everyone is not in the same boat. No man has to spend $50 in order to get a bra that fits, and no man will be judged a slut if he wears an ill-fitting or no bra and his breasts jiggle. You willfully choose not to see this inequality, because it’s comfortable to you not to see it. To me, your willful blindness is a sin.
So, you really think if said girl had an innocent stranger whisper in her ear, perhaps in a library, she couldn’t suck it up and get over it?
A huge number of men are sexually aroused by the sight of woman wearing sandals who has pretty feet. Am I obliged to wear boots all the time? A number of men really like the nape of a woman’s neck. Am I to wear turtlenecks? At what point should women wear burquas all the time to cover every single possible body part that straight men might find enticing?
I imagine that she could. She would still be distracted, however.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you think that her arousal and distraction are a case of her having inadequate self-control?
Never.
However, that philosophy (“women have to cover everything”) is simply one extreme, no more acceptable than the opposite extreme (“there should be no social conventions whatsoever”).
I am not arguing for either extreme. I am arguing that all adults must be aware of their actions, and mindful of possible consequences. Your word is apt – “obliged”. You are not obliged to take the reactions of other people into consideration. However, it is respectful of other peoples’ comfort to do so. I don’t roast pigs outside the Jewish vegetarian community center. They have no right to demand that I refrain from doing so – and if they did, I probably would out of spite. However, they can expect that other people would respect their clearly articulated preferences, when those preferences don’t hurt anybody. Note the original context of this discussion – a person speaking to evangelicals. Unless she is hopelessly clueless, she is well aware of the social conventions surrounding dress and modesty in that environment.
I think this discussion is pretty ironic, given the other links in this link farm: we have a woman told to leave a worship service because she is insufficiently attentive to concealing her breasts, then we have a girl whose photgraph is excised from the school yearbook because [by wearing a tux rather than a drape] she was excessively attentive to concealing her breasts. Sometimes, ya just can’t win, huh?
If women constantly show nipples, the sight will quickly decrease in power. Why would Christians see this as bad?
There’s no description in the post about the size and bounciness of the breasts, nor whether they *were* actually distracting anyone other than the people who took her aside. The assumption is that of course they would be just because there’s no bra.
How active do evangelicals get during prayers services that her breasts would be in motion?
For many forms of inequality, I am inclined to agree with you. For other forms of inequality, your prescription is horrifying. (In the sexual context, we treat 5-year old, 15-year old, and 25-year old women in unequal ways. If you want to change that inegalitarian cultural norm, you’ll do it over my dead body.) Hyper-egalitarianism is hyper-immoral.
At least some forms of non-moral inequality are simply to be borne. Yes, it’s unfair that it’s more difficult for a woman to be modestly dressed than for a man to be modestly dressed. So? It’s more difficult for a man to conceal his sexual arousal than it is for a woman to do so. And again, so? It’s not anybody’s fault that men have visible arousal, and it’s not anybody’s fault that women have body parts that often generate excitement in men. The specific manifestations of these things may be socially constructed, but the underlying reality isn’t. Nature gave you tits, not the patriarchy.
Resisting these relatively petty inequalities isn’t a heroic struggle against patriarchy, it’s just making people uncomfortable to no purpose. Every woman in the world can start going topless as a rebellion against the breastophobia of western culture, and western culture will just find some other body part to turn sexy. In cultures where nudity is casual, other things become erotic stimuli. We’re a sexual species; whether or not that is unfair to one sex or to both, it isn’t going to change.
How active do evangelicals get during prayers services that her breasts would be in motion?
Depends. Pretty active, for some people.
How fucking tolerant of you to refrain from doing something you probably wouldn’t want to do anyway, unless some uppity Yid started issuing demands, in which case you’d do it out of spite. Has it occurred to you that maybe the woman in question felt the same sense of spite? Maybe she got sick of being told what to do with her body and decided to do what she wanted? Why is your spite ok and hers not? Because you’re a man and she’s a woman? Because Christians have a right to respect and Jews should just be grateful for whatever little crumbs of dignity you decide to throw our way?
OK, Sally, it’s becoming obvious that you don’t want to have a discussion on this. You just want to attack me for not validating your “right” to do whatever you wish, without social constraint. Sorry; I think social constraints apply to everyone, and for good reasons. It’s interesting and possibly productive to discuss what those constraints ought to be to maximize “fairness” or “justice” or other values, but it’s not possible to have the discussion with someone who views every single constraint as an attack. I regret that we weren’t able to have an exchange of views.
How convenient of you to refuse to answer my question while accusing me of not wanting a discussion. I’ll repeat: why is your spiteful pig barbeque ok and her spiteful bralessness not?
Actually, Robert, your idea that women should be mindful of what they wear in order not to “distract” men usually does translate to obligation and in fact legal duty in most cultures. I am still of mind of the time that I was hauled into the principal’s office in high school, humiliated by being forced to kneel on the ground in order to measure the length of my shorts, having it determined that my shorts were half an inch too short for the dress code and being lectured by the principal on my obligation to wear modest clothes for the sake of the boys and their all-important education. The importance of my education became all too clear when I was sent home, missing my math class, in order to change into jeans. In the summer. In a school with no air conditioning. In Texas.
Some men find a well-turned ankle far more erotic than nipples, so your notion of “extremes” has no application. Being distracted for a moment to brief to mention is not worth comment, and I doubt that was the issue at hand for those who complained. Being distracted for longer is a behavior and up to the person who is being distracted.
Men are not incapable of holding their attention to the matter at hand. My city is filled to the brim with sexily dressed hot hot hot people of both sexes and yet every man I know manages not to ogle just fine.
My idea is that adults have to be mindful, not only women. Since I am explicitly characterizing this as a bi-sexual responsibility, I’d appreciate your recognition of that.
Your example is an instance of someone being unfair to a young person. I don’t see the connection between what your principal did when you were subject to very strict, obligatory social control, and what you choose now to do as a free, emancipated adult.
I’m sorry, but I’m not following your argument here. Yes, there are a variety of things that are considered erotic by different people. How does that invalidate the notion that there is a spectrum of social constraint, ranging from anarchy to total oppression?
Well, if the constraint is defined by hiding what men find distractingly erotic, like nipples, then ankles should be hidden, no? I mean, why are nipples “distracting” if it’s not for their erotic connotation?
And by gum, I wish it went both ways, but I’m hard pressed to find an instant where a man’s clothes were considered distractingly erotic to women and thereby he was requested to hide himself.
If you have an instance of someone in my culture being forced to spend time or money on a certain mode of dress, please cite it. I would find that outrageously offensive.
A high court in Nevada, I think, just upheld a ruling that it was fair for a workplace to demand that its female employees wear “teased, curled, or styled hair” and make-up to work. Apparently, this is the same burden as a man being required to not wear make-up and keep his hair short. Have you, as a man, ever curled your hair? It takes forever and a half. Make-up is the same way, but it costs significantly more.
I also have an anecdotal story for you. One of my former roommates was asked by her boyfriend if she was going to wear her “hot ass pants” one night. When she asked what he meant, he said that he thought she wore this particular pair of pants specifically because it made her ass look even hotter than usual. She hadn’t noticed; they were just particularly nice pants to her. As a woman, though, her clothing automatically sends a message. Would a man ever be accused of wearing “hot ass pants?”
The constraint is not defined by what men find erotic. The constraint is established by what level of responsibility adults choose to accept for their own behavior. Most of us have reasonably accurate common-sense notions of what behavior or attire is appropriate or inappropriate for a particular social context. If we accept the idea that we ought to respect these relatively (IMO) non-oppressive sexual norms, then we follow that constraint. (I don’t forego wearing pants to the park, you don’t go topless to work, neither of us wears a business suit to the beach.)
The level of buy-in we give to following the sartorial norm is what drives the constraint. Some people will only give it a little buy-in (or none at all, and only follow those rules that they must in order to avoid jail.) Some people will give it a reasonable amount of buy-in, without getting hysterical about it; I think you ought to wear a bra to preach, but if you don’t I’m not going to burn down the church. Other people will be REALLY committed to the idea.
What men find sexy is tangential, at most, to the underlying question. Hope I’ve expressed myself more clearly this time.
I recognize that there is a differentiation in the amount of eroticism associated with the different sex’s forms. However, I’m advancing a general principle, not arguing a specific equality. (I argue in favor of freedom of speech, but I don’t pretend that the articulate and the inarticulate both get the same mileage out of the principle.) If men could reduce women to lustful spasms by tugging on our earlobes, I’d be a strong advocate for restricting ear tugging to those areas where it was appropriate.
But the thing is that all sorts of men find women’s feet far sexier than a couple of breeze-induced nips through a shirt. You can claim that eroticism isn’t the issue, but you yourself admit that it is.
If men could reduce women to lustful spasms by tugging on our earlobes, I’d be a strong advocate for restricting ear tugging to those areas where it was appropriate.
Good god–men I know can’t agree if blondes or brunettes are cuter. If you start trying to advocate for female responsibility for male sexual response, the list of things that we women cannot do gets really, really, really long. I’m sitting here thinking of all the things men I’ve known told me gave them distracting and lustful thoughts and I’m really disturbed to think that these things might cross your arbitrary line. Like going to work. Reading a book. Driving a car.
The responsibility for how you read things lies with you. Shirts that show off the shape of a woman’s breast are completely within normal fashion in many communities, like mine for example.
Could you show me where I do this?
Could you tell me what arbitrary line I’ve drawn? I really don’t see that I’ve done that, and I’d be helped greatly in improving my communications here if you could show me what I said that gave you this impression.
Absolutely. And the responsibility for what I’m reading lies with other people.
Robert:
I realize you’re trying to be funny with your phrasing, but this is an inaccurate analogy – and inaccurate in a way that’s important for the argument here. Men are not “reduced to lustful spasms” by being able to see a woman’s nipples through her shirt. As you yourself pointed out, men are quite capable of relaxing, thinking “yeah, it’s a boob, so?”? and moving on.
I don’t think Mike’s post was asking any more of men than that. And it’s not an unreasonable thing to ask.
Yes, I suppose. We can all agree that no one should walk up to strangers in a typical church and start pawing at their private regions, for example.
The problem with this as applied to women’s dress is that what is or isn’t acceptable has changed – and in retrospect, for the better – over time. I think it’s good that women are allowed to wear pants if they want to, for instance; but at one time that would have been considered irresponsible and unbearable. But for that change to happen, someone needs to be willing to buck conventional wisdom.
Personally, I don’t see why we should have different dress codes for men and women at all. Since no matter what dress code we have, heterosexual women and men will still find ways to find each other hot, it seems to me that the fairest thing is to work towards equal treatment in dress codes.
On the other hand, I also worry about social pressure put on women – especially young women – to expose more than they might otherwise want to. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with a woman or older teenager dressing sexy if that’s genuinely what she wants, but just as social norms can unfairly demand that women cover up, social norms can unfairly demand that women put themselves on display.
Another link: there’s an interesting discussion among younger progressives going on at CampusProgress.org on the question of how to redefine the women’s movement (click the name).
I gave you the quote where you said that the erotic reactions of men should control women’s behavior. The line is completely arbitrary when you define one part of a woman’s body–her nipples–as something that cannot be seen in public, even through a shirt but allow for another part–her ankles, her hair–as fine. That’s pretty much the definition of arbitrary.
No, you gave me a quote where I said that men should restrain their own actions where it affects women in a particular context.
Two propositions.
A) Robert says, “people ought to exercise self control in the matter of [x].”
B) Robert says, “I am going to control you in the matter of [x]”
Do you believe that A = B?
Fine, whatever. But I want to know what body parts are erotic to the point that we can all agree that if men are “distracted” by them, women have to take responsibility to cover them up.
Robert states: Absolutely. And the responsibility for what I’m reading lies with other people.
how is it that other people are responsible for your subjective act of reading?
how is it that other people are responsible for your subjective act of reading?
They aren’t. They’re responsible for the objective fact of what I see. It’s up to me to interpret; it’s up to them to present. (Note to the confused, reading is a metaphor. We’re talking about clothes.)
We can all agree that no one should walk up to strangers in a typical church and start pawing at their private regions, for example.
Well, there go my plans to emulate L. Ron Hubbard. Killjoy.
it seems to me that the fairest thing is to work towards equal treatment in dress codes…On the other hand, I also worry about social pressure put on women – especially young women – to expose more than they might otherwise want to…
The second statement carries more weight. Popular culture tells girls from the day they’re born: “you’re a sexual commodity. show off the merchandise, or you’re a loser.”
“Equal” dress codes would have a profoundly unequal effect. As things stand, “modest” girls have the backing of social norms concerning dress (which have not entirely eroded by the incessant poison of the pop culture).
Popular culture is filth. ;)
Robert replies: They aren’t. They’re responsible for the objective fact of what I see. It’s up to me to interpret; it’s up to them to present.
hmmm…. i knew an “objective fact” was going to pop up at some point in this conversation. so, let me make sure i get this: they present, you interpret, & an objective fact somehow emerges or is revealed, right? which would be what exactly? i’m assuming you mean some kind of judgment or conclusion concerning the social meaning of a given person’s clothing.
i think Batgirl’s anecdote above is pertinent here. her roommate believed that all she was presenting (if anything) was the fact that she was wearing “nice pants” whereas her boyfriend interpreted the wearing of the same pants as “specifically because it made her ass look even hotter than usual”…
so, are said pants “nice pants” or “hot ass pants”? perhaps you can tease the objective fact out here, because i can’t seem to find it.
I’m responsible if you see my ankles, even though it’s your responsibility if that gets you all riled up. So what part is my responsibility for the ankle-viewing? Do you think the ankles should be hidden or not? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Or nipples. Whatever body part suddenly crosses the line into owner-of-body responsibility for what others see.
“They’re responsible for the objective fact of what I see.”
And that’s exactly where their responsibility ends. So what is the point, exactly?
I occassionally hike toples b/c I’ll be damned if I have to worry about some strange man’s interpretation of my breasts in the middle of the woods on an August day in North Carolina.
My body. My choice. :)
I suppose now, that if the influence of porn weren’t so huge, this would be a non-issue.
We’re in a culture that fetishizes women’s breasts. But that fetishization isn’t a universal, ahistorical fact. There have been cultures in which women and men normally went around topless. That didn’t mean that men were sexually aroused all the time.
Among the many problems this fetishization leads to is the opposition to public breastfeeding of children.
That story about the yearbook was unsettling. The principal’s position was a hair’s breadth away from an outright declaration that sexual objectification of women was mandatory. Damned creepy.
which would be what exactly? i’m assuming you mean some kind of judgment or conclusion concerning the social meaning of a given person’s clothing.
No, by objective fact I mean the objective thing that the person is wearing, or not. If you wear a blue shirt, then I see a blue shirt.
it seems to me that the fairest thing is to work towards equal treatment in dress codes…On the other hand, I also worry about social pressure put on women – especially young women – to expose more than they might otherwise want to…
The second statement carries more weight. Popular culture tells girls from the day they’re born: “you’re a sexual commodity. show off the merchandise, or you’re a loser.”?
Riiiiight. Because protecting women is more important than allowing equal dress codes. Because, of course, the allowing of equal dress codes has no possibility of changing social pressures. Because, even if women were equal, they would still need to be protected.
And, of course, if you wear a really short skirt & no underwear you can’t really be surprised if you get raped. I mean, although you have the right to do that, you also know that it tells men that you “want it.” This is the same logic that Robert is using wrt nipples in church. That is that you have every right to do it, but you know what the reaction will be so stop complaining about “unfairness”. It’s just an “objective fact” that this will happen and you know it. And because you know what the reaction will be, it is an objective fact that can’t be changed so there is no point in challenging it. A rock is a rock, women will always be sexually objectified.
I’m pretty well disgusted by Robert’s string of posts rationalizing (his and others) sexual/dress codes as “objective fact.”
I’m pretty well disgusted by Robert’s string of posts rationalizing (his and others) sexual/dress codes as “objective fact.”?
Since I’m not doing that, your disgust leaves me somewhat confused.
Riiiiight. Because protecting women is more important than allowing equal dress codes.
There is a conflict between equality and, in our highly pressurized sexual culture, providing women a genuine choice as to modes of dress. Social norms concerning attire can be excessively stifling, but at a moderate level, can provide support for women who make choices different than the majoritarian culture.
You seem to have contempt for me because I recognize this tradeoff. I’m not sure why.
And, of course, if you wear a really short skirt & no underwear you can’t really be surprised if you get raped. I mean, although you have the right to do that, you also know that it tells men that you “want it.”? This is the same logic that Robert is using wrt nipples in church.
Is a childish misrepresentation of my argument the only way you can define your own position?
Rob and Jake, both of you please take it down a couple of notches from the most recent two posts. Thanks.
Robert says: No, by objective fact I mean the objective thing that the person is wearing, or not. If you wear a blue shirt, then I see a blue shirt.
well, putting aside the fact that, in the immortal words of Jesse Ventura:
i confess that i, like Q Grrl, fail to see your point. we’re not talking about the color of clothes here, i think, or at least not solely. i think we’re talking about how certain kinds of clothing & attire can provoke sexual interpretations/responses in others &, more importantly, whether such responses should be given any weight whatsoever other than as indicators of various individuals sexual proclivities. you’ve said you want people to be mindful of their social context when clothing themselves, but this is not only to assume discrete social environments exist & are easily understood, but also to accept the given “majoritarian” social environments at face value, as if things like ties & button-up shirts were the result of some naturally occurring phenomenon in human society.
If you’re not representing our dress codes as objective fact, what are you doing?
There is a conflict between equality and, in our highly pressurized sexual culture, providing women a genuine choice as to modes of dress. Social norms concerning attire can be excessively stifling, but at a moderate level, can provide support for women who make choices different than the majoritarian culture.
And here you seem to be saying that rather than challenge the social norms, we should all conform since we know what the reaction will be if we do otherwise. Actually on re-reading that, I’m not sure that is what you are saying. Are you saying that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality? If that’s what you’re saying please elaborate as I have no idea how that would be so. Perhaps you’re saying both?
I don’t have contempt for you for recognizing the trade-off. I have contempt for you for appearing to prefer the trade-off (and the patronizing and stifling behaviours and injustices that go along with it) to changing the social norms and/or the pressurized sexual culture.
Please tell me how the comparison of logic in argument was a misrepresentation of your argument. Have you not been arguing that the woman who allowed her nipples to show in church knew what that reaction would be and that, therefore, there is no reason to complain?
[Post pointing out an error that Amp has since corrected, deleted by Amp]
I think he’s just confused. Women face one kind of damaging social pressure. He seems to think that if there’s an equal and opposite social pressure, it will offset the first one. But as pretty much any woman negotiating this stuff will tell you, that’s not how it works. The pressure to be “modest” doesn’t offset the pressure to be “sexy.” It just leaves us struggling to find a tiny, constantly-shifting middle-ground in which we’ll be modest enough but still sexy enough. By adding a countervailing social pressure, you don’t liberate us from the first pressure. You just lock us up in an even smaller cage.
If you’re not representing our dress codes as objective fact, what are you doing?
Saying that people ought to act responsibly.
…you seem to be saying that rather than challenge the social norms, we should all conform since we know what the reaction will be if we do otherwise…I have contempt for you for appearing to prefer the trade-off (and the patronizing and stifling behaviours and injustices that go along with it) to changing the social norms and/or the pressurized sexual culture.
Last paragraph of comment 20. There’s no point to challenging certain types of social norms; they are inevitable. (You might want to change them to something more comfortable for you – but you will just be making things less comfortable for someone else.) When there is no way to get to “justice”, trying is destructive.
Some things have to be traded off. Be contemptuous all you like, and refuse to make the tradeoffs all you like; at the end of your life spent fighting against this particular aspect of social organization, you will be dead, and the tradeoff will remain.
The culture, however, we can change. I’m all for desexualizing the popular culture. Want to join my club?
Are you saying that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality? If that’s what you’re saying please elaborate as I have no idea how that would be so. Perhaps you’re saying both?
See last two paragraphs of Amp’s comment 32.
Please tell me how the comparison of logic in argument was a misrepresentation of your argument. Have you not been arguing that the woman who allowed her nipples to show in church knew what that reaction would be and that, therefore, there is no reason to complain?
No, I have not been arguing that.
I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.
Those statements may not be uncontroversial here, but to equate them to me saying that women who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped is offensive.
Robert says: I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.
so, you’re not making any kind of general argument then? other than the vague “people should act responsibly”?
still, so much to chew on! let’s go on, shall we?
Robert proclaims: There’s no point to challenging certain types of social norms; they are inevitable.
hmmm… where have i heard this one before?
(You might want to change them to something more comfortable for you – but you will just be making things less comfortable for someone else.)
bummer. i always feel bad about making authoritarian sexists, self-righteous moralists, & other self-appointed protectors of the social order feel less comfortable.
When there is no way to get to “justice”, trying is destructive. Some things have to be traded off. Be contemptuous all you like, and refuse to make the tradeoffs all you like; at the end of your life spent fighting against this particular aspect of social organization, you will be dead, and the tradeoff will remain.
y’know what? despite the fact that i generally think white men telling the rest of the world what they need to accept & endure is the height of entitled arrogance, you’ve convinced me, Robert. fighting against oppressive social insitutions is useless & selfish & a waste of time. wouldn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable, would we? from now on, i’m going to say only nice things, go to church, & dress appropriately. after all, i don’t want to have wasted my life fighting for something & then just end up dead. easier to just go with the flow, don’t rock the boat, follow orders… etcetera
after all, if i can’t end sexism in my life… actually, why be so generous with my time… if i can’t end sexism in the next half-hour, what’s the point?
It’s not worth arguing with people who can’t or won’t read.
Robert,
I don’t see how the last 2 paragraphs of comment 32 in any way equates to the statement that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality. I see that Amp worries about the pressure to present as sex-object, not that a choice of dress is in conflict with equality. Your statement is self-negating in the sense of – White is black! Down is up! Allowing women equality in this specific area is oppression! And honestly I find it offensive to hear you say that allowing choice restricts freedom and having you expect that to be believed.
Your statement that there is no point to challenging certain social norms seems absurd on its face. It, in essence, reduces “certain social norms” to objective fact. Why is there no point in challenging the current social norms of women’s mode of dress? Can it not be changed? Has it always been what it is now in the US?
I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.
So it didn’t violate her right to dress as she pleases? Freedom of expression anybody? You aren’t asking her to restrict her choices/freedom of expression because you think others are unable to control their own impulses/urges? Why not ask those offended to ignore it? Is that more of a violation of rights than ignoring offensive speech? Your politely phrased/thinly veiled moral judgement that it is up to the woman in this case to moderate her behaviour rather than it being up to her fellow congregants not to ogle is offensively sexist. Or it is offensively anti-religious (or sexist if we’re only talking about male congregants) if your meaning is that the congregants couldn’t control their distraction enough to continue in prayer to their god.
Those statements may not be uncontroversial here, but to equate them to me saying that women who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped is offensive.
Be intentionally obtuse if you want, but I was comparing the logic that you have been using here to the logic that others have used to excuse rape, not equating your words to saying that women who who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped. Besides which, so much of what you have said here is offensive that I must think to myself, “Pot, kettle, black.”
Well, I do kinda agree with Robert that some norms exist, and are not oppressive (or at least not unjustifiably so). If she had gone to the church enitrely topless (or, for that matter, if a man had gone to the prayer meeting entirely topless) I don’t think it would be oppressive for this Debby to tell her that she was transgressing. That said, I don’t think bras are mandatory, and I think it was not inappropriate in the specific case mentioned (unless it was a really thin t-shirt, like sheer or transparent). I suppose it’s a judgement call. I agree that there exist cases in which she would have been doing something wrong by how she dressed (i.e. the wholesale toplessness hypothetical mentioned previously) but I don’t agree that this was one of them.
Robert declares: It’s not worth arguing with people who can’t or won’t read.
yeah, that must suck, Robert. i imagine there are many who share your frustrations… not being able to read myself, i know that i often frustrate folks in these online dialogues/donnybrooks.
but even when i asked my friend, Mr. Snuffaluffagus, to help me sound stuff out, i still wasn’t able to find anything more definitive in your statements other than vague statements concerning personal responsibility & the ever-popular “common sense.” a few times you’ve been a bit more forthright, but when challenged (as Sally & others have), you generally retreat into the hazy “adults should act responsibly” again (btw, responsible to who?)
you know what would help me out (i know you don’t care about helping me out, but let’s just pretend for a moment)? if you could make a list of social norms/constraints divided into those which are oppressive & those that aren’t, maybe cross-referenced with those that are worth fighting against & those that are inevitable & will see us all in our cold graves. if you use small words & maybe write it up in block capitals i might not even have to ask Mr. Snuffaluffagus for help! in the meantime, i’ve got to get back to Spot & the Big Red Ball. i’m right in the middle of a good part: “See the ball, Spot. See the big red ball. See the big red ball bounce!”
ah, Western literature….
FoolishOwl said:
We’re in a culture that fetishizes women’s breasts. But that fetishization isn’t a universal, ahistorical fact. There have been cultures in which women and men normally went around topless. That didn’t mean that men were sexually aroused all the time.
Nevertheless, I must point out that we do NOT live in such a culture today. Whether male attraction to nipples is completely hardwired or caused by cultural conditioning is not the point: the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men do find nipples erotic. In our culture, ankles are not considered to be erotic, so nowhere near as many men are going to be distracted by them.
Anyways, you don’t have to be a heterosexual male to find nipples distracting. On Hugo’s blog, one female poster mentioned that she found breasts and nipples distracting. Neither do those nipples have to be female to cause a distraction. If a man led prayer in a thin white t-shirt that showed his nipples, many people regardless of sex would find it distracting. Should they just get over it? Is their distraction their fault and all in their heads?
It seems as if clothing norms for church services exist for a reason: to ensure that people focus on the service, rather than on the body of the person giving the service. Hence, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask anyone giving a service to dress in a manner appropriate to giving a service considering what most people in the audience will consider a distraction (regardless of whether their distraction is based on anything rational or not!). It is not appropriate for me to lead prayer dressed as Big Bird, not because there is anything wrong with Big Bird, but because a Big Bird costume will be considered intersubjectively distracting. Should I say to an audience, “You only find my Big Bird costume distracting due to current arbitrary social constructions… There are cultures in which people do conduct religious ceremonies dressed as birds… so it’s your fault if you are distracted!” ??
Nevertheless, I must point out that we do NOT live in such a culture today.
Which is why we need to find ways to contest the fetishization of women’s breasts, rather than simply accepting it. When an overtly harmful social practice is in operation, it’s best to contest it, not passively accept it.
I chose the word “fetishization” because the way breasts are treated goes beyond eroticization. I have, on occasion, found a lover’s ankles erotic, along with the texture of her skin, and the sound of her laughter, and all sorts of other things that all together add up to the experience of the physical presence of another person. But I don’t think of any of those things in isolation. The trouble with “fetishization” is that breasts are treated as objects of sexual fascination, separate and alienated from the human being they’re part of. The part is treated as more important than the whole.
Regarding the same topic, Hugo writes (and I agree): “As I’ve written before, this myth of male weakness is misogynist and misandrist simultaneously (a neat trick). It assumes that men are simply incapable of self-control and focus in the face of sexual arousal, and it assumes that because of that weakness, women have to do the work of making public places ‘safe’ for their brothers.”?
Ah, yes, it’s the ever-popular ‘Men are Beasts’ theory, which appears most often in conjunction with the ‘Women are Mothers’ theory – the ‘Men are Beasts’ theory always involves a complaint that women aren’t mothering the world enough and protecting these horrid, beastly men from their horrid beastly caveman selves.
It’s interesting that this complaint apparently relies on the assumption that women control the world. Huh. Ever notice how chicks only get a matriarchy when it’s All Our Fault?
Anyway,
Robert wrote, ’round about comment 52: I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.
Because, of course, it’s physically impossible for anyone around her to see those nipples but choose – out of politeness – not to notice them. Wouldn’t that really be the responsible, adult reaction, regardless of the venue (church, the mall, a political protest) of the offending activity?
“Oh, I see someone being tasteless (whether it’s going braless in church or hatless at Easter). But I don’t know them well, so, I won’t say anything.”
(You know, no one seems to have hit on what I see as the simplest explanation for the original hoo-haw: this woman forgot to wear a bra, or didn’t realize it would be so obvious with her choice in shirt that she wasn’t wearing one, and then got pissed off about being pulled aside over it. I sure would get pissed off if someone pulled me aside in a multichurch conference setting to criticize not the inclusiveness of my prayer or the logic of some analysis of doctrine, but my fucking underwear! Especially if such attire was the norm “back home”. Not all women wear bras. Not all feel the need, physically or culturally.)
Once again, the onus is on the woman to not offend, instead of the viewer to be empathetic, compassionate, or, dare I say, even Christian.
The problem with requiring the other party to never offend, is that you cannot not offend someone, somewhere, somehow, unless you negate your very existence.
FoolishOwl said:
Which is why we need to find ways to contest the fetishization of women’s breasts, rather than simply accepting it. When an overtly harmful social practice is in operation, it’s best to contest it, not passively accept it.
Sure. I just don’t think that leading prayer braless is a very good way of contesting the norm.
Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to recognize the existence of norms even if they are arbitrary.
Reconciling men getting over discomfort vs. girls not being comfortable with dressing sexually
Sidra Vitale said:
Because, of course, it’s physically impossible for anyone around her to see those nipples but choose – out of politeness – not to notice them. Wouldn’t that really be the responsible, adult reaction, regardless of the venue (church, the mall, a political protest) of the offending activity?
“Oh, I see someone being tasteless (whether it’s going braless in church or hatless at Easter). But I don’t know them well, so, I won’t say anything.”?
1. But it IS pretty much impossible to see something and choose not to notice it. You are still noticing it, even if you pretend not to out of politeness. Perhaps you mean that you can see something but choose to ignore it?
2. It’s not just an issue of any person going braless or dressing tastelessly. In the specific circumstances, the person in question was leading a prayer service. I think it is perfectly fair to say that if someone is going to lead a prayer, that the onus should be on them to avoid distracting the audience from that prayer with their clothing/body. This applies because of the role you take on, and the responsibilities inherent in that role, regardless of whether you are male or female. True, you can’t please everyone, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to please anyone. Hence, you should avoid dressing in a way that will distract a majority of your audience, regardless of whether you share their norms of what is distracting or not. In the case of nipples, it is clear that they will distract a large subset of an audience during prayer.
Oops, there were a couple lines in my last post that I seem to have forgotten to edit out, so disregard them:
“Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to recognize the existence of norms even if they are arbitrary.
Reconciling men getting over discomfort vs. girls not being comfortable with dressing sexually”
one interesting thing about this discussion is the assumptions people make about “church” – as if there was only one kind with a single widely understood dress code. in the original article, the bobbling boobie incident occured in a multi-denominational setting – an intentional gathering of different perspectives.
now, believe it or not, i’ve actually been to church. actually, make that “churches”. some have had guys with extremely distracting & funny hats leading the services, some have had folks with strange facial tics giving sermons, not to mention folks with sadly tonedeaf voices leading the hymns…. some as well have had “Liberated West Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian” types leading the service. to tell the truth, i never sat close enough to the front to ascertain the state of their nipple coverage.
here’s the thing, in the original article, we only really get a detailed account of the LWCFEDH-WC’s reaction (& please note the over-the-top characterization). we don’t hear anything really about how “Debby” presented her nipple suggestion, if suggestion it was. and why no characterization of Debby? i guess we can assume she’s not a LWCFEDH-WC but then… what? maybe she’s a Repressed East Coast These-Leather-Boots-Were-Made-For-Stomping-Hippies Republican Christian? who knows? here again is that assumption of the “average Christian”, the average church-goer. more, we are led to assume that Debby spoke for the whole group. what? did she take a vote? again, who knows? maybe she did. or maybe she was projecting her nipple-insecurity onto the whole group.
Aegis writes: I think it is perfectly fair to say that if someone is going to lead a prayer, that the onus should be on them to avoid distracting the audience from that prayer with their clothing/body.
ok, so cover those nipples! and stop with the funny hats! and, please, if you have some kind of physical deformity, could you just not even come to church, because you know, that would be distracting.
and if you’re a super hot babe or major beefcake then the same applies…. i’m trying to pray here! not imagine you… and me… up there…. on the altar… in front of everyone… wearing funny hats….
lead me not, i say!
Aegis picked a nit:
1. But it IS pretty much impossible to see something and choose not to notice it. You are still noticing it, even if you pretend not to out of politeness. Perhaps you mean that you can see something but choose to ignore it?
I was alluding indirectly to the quip, “nakedness is often seen but never noticed”.
Debbie’s objection to this woman’s attire was official notice – that’s official solely in the sense of public – of her alleged clothing transgression. Jam points out, quite rightly, that different church traditions may have different ideas of what’s appropriate attire for church. What’s non-distracting attire for one church may be incredibly offensive for another.
Who makes that judgment call of to what clothing standard interfaith or interdenominational gatherings will adhere?
We’re not all perfectly informed about every faith or every denomination of a particular faith, or every church and their practices in that denomination. Spend enough years in just your church and you’ll probably forget other people do things differently. It may not even occur to you that a funny hat – or nipples, or speaking in tongues, or snake-handling, etc. – is distracting.