Maybe women should dress more conservatively

[Els]

I question this analogy, partially due to the legal issues that I outlined in a previous post, and partially due to the long history of men seeking to control women by means of what they are allowed to wear and how they are allowed to act in public. The sociocultural and political history of women's dress is just entirely different from that of robbery, and that matters quite a lot for how such issues are interpreted and understood in the present, by both genders.

 

Oh, I agree. But should we really steer from one extreme to the other, to right the wrongs of the past? Surely there must be middle ground between 'how a man acts is all a woman's fault because of how she dresses' and 'a woman should have no responsibility whatsoever for the way she conducts herself which gives certain impressions to people'?

[denise_xo]

Just to add to my last post: Why do we never see threads 'men should dress more conservatively'? Someone suggested further up that men don't dress very provocatively. Actually, they frequently show just as much skin as women do (shorts, tank tops, bum crevices sticking out of shorts and trousers), but cultural conventions haven't sexualised their bodies in the same way as women's. Same reason why women in Saudi need to cover up, and men don;t to the same extent.

[Els]

Just to add to my last post: Why do we never see threads 'men should dress more conservatively'? Someone suggested further up that men don't dress very provocatively. Actually, they frequently show just as much skin as women do (shorts, tank tops, bum crevices sticking out of shorts and trousers), but cultural conventions haven't sexualised their bodies in the same way as women's.

 

Women are indeed judged more by their dress than men, and this goes both ways (ie a woman dressed in a baggy tee and shorts outside would be judged and a man wouldn't). It is unfair, yes. However, that is the way society has become, and you either conform or expect to be judged. Women should not really have to hide their breasts, but surely you would not expect to walk bare-chested on the street and not receive any response. Men are also judged in ways that women are not; I would not advise a guy to jump and scream and wave his hands in the air at the sight of a cockroach, unless he wants to be laughed at and called a pansy.

[sanskrit]

and partially due to the long history of men seeking to control women by means of what they are allowed to wear and how they are allowed to act in public.

 

:rolleyes: YAWN :rolleyes:

 

or rather document this, with special emphasis on -your- experiences of it in -your- life, spare us 1500s tribes in New Guinea please.

[denise_xo]

Oh, I agree. But should we really steer from one extreme to the other, to right the wrongs of the past? Surely there must be middle ground between 'how a man acts is all a woman's fault because of how she dresses' and 'a woman should have no responsibility whatsoever for the way she conducts herself which gives certain impressions to people'?

 

Well, personally I don't think I have argued for 'the other extreme'. But there is an apriori assumption going that women who wear mini skirts and skimpy tops are sluts (or something of that sort), which underlies a lot of the 'well she kind of asked for it' thinking. Exactly because of the history of this issue, I therefore question the issue of 'responsibility' more in these kind of cases because I think it is a notion that is extremely prone to be used for the abusive purposes. Of course I think we all have responsibilities in how we conduct ourselves. But even in the pretending-to-be-Nazi walking through Jerusalem example above, I still will insist that if the 'nazi' is assaulted, the assaulter is at fault. What I tend to see in a lot of the 'women who dress like sluts' line of thinking, is that the man IS NOT AT FAULT should he act inappropriately towards a woman in skimpy dress. And that is when I get quite worried.

[Els]

Yes, definitely, anyone who acts disrespectfully towards anyone else is wrong, no matter the cause. But one can influence to some degree what disrespect they receive.

 

I also think the scanty fashions that some women choose to wear ARE exactly what is sexualizing women's skin, as well. They are designed to tantalize, accentuate, flaunt, instead of merely bare skin. Hot pants are not just short, but also tight around the booty, the way men's shorts rarely are. Tube dresses hug around the torso, baring the upper halves of breasts that are usually pushed up by a push-up bra, and cling to the ass as the woman walks. Those were created precisely to entice men; it is not just the bared skin that does so.

[denise_xo]

:rolleyes: YAWN :rolleyes:

 

or rather document this, with special emphasis on -your- experiences of it in -your- life, spare us 1500s tribes in New Guinea please.

 

This is sociology 101 in all of Europe, have a look in your local library.

[sanskrit]

Just to add to my last post: Why do we never see threads 'men should dress more conservatively'? Someone suggested further up that men don't dress very provocatively. Actually, they frequently show just as much skin as women do (shorts, tank tops, bum crevices sticking out of shorts and trousers), but cultural conventions haven't sexualised their bodies in the same way as women's. Same reason why women in Saudi need to cover up, and men don;t to the same extent.

 

No, the examples of male undress you are citing aren't -secondary sex characteristics-, or perhaps I should let my pubes poke up above my belt just a bit and show a bit of ball through holes in my jeans? Just a wee bit o ball, not the whole thing, maybe a bit of "ball cleavage?" Sound good?

[denise_xo]

WHowever, that is the way society has become, and you either conform or expect to be judged.

 

Well, a third option here, which doesn't exclude the one you mention, is to challenge. I have the freedoms I have today because my mother and my grandmother's generations challenged 'what society has become'.

[betterdeal]

No, the examples of male undress you are citing aren't -secondary sex characteristics-, or perhaps I should let my pubes poke up above my belt just a bit and show a bit of ball through holes in my jeans? Just a wee bit o ball, not the whole thing, maybe a bit of "ball cleavage?" Sound good?

 

You are Stuey of Family Guy and I claim my £5.

[Lucky_One]

Yup, I compared you to future rapists and I stand by it. Anyone who thinks a woman DESERVES mistreatment based on what she wears will probably end up as a real-life penetrator as in "The Accused."

 

I haven't finished reading the thread, but I just can't agree with this.

 

In my world, it is a pretty established fact that men are visual, that men like women's bodies, and that men are very often verbally or physically appreciative about seeing something they like.

 

I just see the vast majority of men who have commented on this thread of being honest. Yes, most men will look at a women who has dressed provocatively. Some guys will say something to her, and most will just look at her. And if she is dressed too provocatively, then more will say something to her.

 

If she doesn't like a stranger in the post office saying "Nice rack", then she needs to not display her rack so openly. If a guy doesn't like a woman saying "That's a stupid jacked up pickup", then he needs to take off the lift kit and remove the neon.

 

I don't see ANYONE saying that a woman who dresses too "lightly" (I saw that elsewhere on this thread - I like the way that comes out!) deserves to be sexually assaulted in any form.

 

But men have talked trash since the beginning of time. ALL women know it. We are taught it by watching our schoolmates, we are taught it by our older sisters, we are taught it by our mothers, we are taught it by watching TV. Right or wrong, it happens. And if a woman doesn't like having someone look at her or say something to her that she deems offensive, then she might be better off to cover some of her skin.

 

My son's date (first time he took her out) for a Christmas dance had a dress on that barely covered her butt. He said he was embarrassed when he picked her up and they got in the car, because her dress rode up so far when she sat down in the seat that he could see glimpses of her panty crotch and he did not know where to look. He's a teenager with racing hormones driving a car, and he has some young woman showing him pale pink panties and he's supposed to 1) pay attention to the road 2) treat her respectfully and 3) not stare at her crotch or her boobs. I chaperoned the dance, and when they walked in, I was shocked. (Actually I was shocked by about 20% of the dresses - they were inappropriate for the ages of the girls and they looked (Yes I am going to say it) cheap and slutty.)

 

And trust me - I blame her mother and father (her father was MOST unhappy with the choice of dress, but he still could have forbidden her to wear it), I blame the young woman, I blame society. I'm not suggesting we go back to corsets or crinolines, but leaving something to the imagination would be a nice change.

[fortyninethousand322]

Well, personally I don't think I have argued for 'the other extreme'. But there is an apriori assumption going that women who wear mini skirts and skimpy tops are sluts (or something of that sort), which underlies a lot of the 'well she kind of asked for it' thinking. Exactly because of the history of this issue, I therefore question the issue of 'responsibility' more in these kind of cases because I think it is a notion that is extremely prone to be used for the abusive purposes. Of course I think we all have responsibilities in how we conduct ourselves. But even in the pretending-to-be-Nazi walking through Jerusalem example above, I still will insist that if the 'nazi' is assaulted, the assaulter is at fault. What I tend to see in a lot of the 'women who dress like sluts' line of thinking, is that the man IS NOT AT FAULT should he act inappropriately towards a woman in skimpy dress. And that is when I get quite worried.

 

The impression I got from those posters saying that women "deserved" to be treated badly was not that they thought the men weren't at fault, but merely that all parties involved had a part to play. If a Nazi did walk through Jerusalem and got roughed up I don't think I'd cry a river. If a girl gets harassed because she wore skimpy clothing, yes the man is at fault (and should be confronted and told his behavior is unacceptable), but I'm not going out of my way to make the girl feel better.

[Els]

That is true. But challenging should not be done by encouraging women to wear clothes that are purposefully made to, as per my previous post, tantalize and sexualize themselves, and expect to waive all personal responsibility as to the consequences. I am sure there is no other reason for wearing, say, a short tube dress with killer heels - it certainly isn't for comfort or practicality.

[denise_xo]

Yes, definitely, anyone who acts disrespectfully towards anyone else is wrong, no matter the cause. But one can influence to some degree what disrespect they receive.

 

Agreed. But we have to remember that we operate on two levels here: that of acting in specific situations, and that of principles. So I might have to do certain things to conform to society in particular situations, but I might still be principally opposed to the underlying dynamics of those choices.

 

I also think the scanty fashions that some women choose to wear ARE exactly what is sexualizing women's skin, as well. They are designed to tantalize, accentuate, flaunt, instead of merely bare skin. Hot pants are not just short, but also tight around the booty, the way men's shorts rarely are. Tube dresses hug around the torso, baring the upper halves of breasts that are usually pushed up by a push-up bra, and cling to the ass as the woman walks. Those were created precisely to entice men; it is not just the bared skin that does so.

 

Yes, this is the point I made earlier that women's bodies have been sexualised in ways that men's haven't.

[sanskrit]

This is sociology 101 in all of Europe, have a look in your local library.

 

OK, first, naming one of the "social sciences" doesn't make a case.

 

Second, life, clothing, appearance, actions, behavior, speech, were pretty much restricted for E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E by the church/king in "all of Europe" except for the top tiny % of aristocracy, and among such aristocratic women, standards of uncovered and covered flesh have fluctuated broadly for centuries. Roman aristocratic ladies often showed nipple, for example.

 

Hate to break it to you, but "life for most people was repressed and stifled throughout 99% of human history in 99% of the world" is not a monopoly of women or any other group for that matter.

[Pianiste]

This is sociology 101 in all of Europe, have a look in your local library.

 

Just in Europe?

 

Imo, this whole discussion has more to do with good upbringing and respect on the guys part than it has with actively mistreating a girl.

 

Also there is really no need for silly analogies (sports, feminism, nazis, raping: wow!) to make things "clear".

[Star Gazer]

I haven't finished reading the thread, but I just can't agree with this.

 

In my world, it is a pretty established fact that men are visual, that men like women's bodies, and that men are very often verbally or physically appreciative about seeing something they like.

 

I just see the vast majority of men who have commented on this thread of being honest. Yes, most men will look at a women who has dressed provocatively. Some guys will say something to her, and most will just look at her. And if she is dressed too provocatively, then more will say something to her.

 

If she doesn't like a stranger in the post office saying "Nice rack", then she needs to not display her rack so openly. If a guy doesn't like a woman saying "That's a stupid jacked up pickup", then he needs to take off the lift kit and remove the neon.

 

I don't see ANYONE saying that a woman who dresses too "lightly" (I saw that elsewhere on this thread - I like the way that comes out!) deserves to be sexually assaulted in any form.

 

But men have talked trash since the beginning of time. ALL women know it. We are taught it by watching our schoolmates, we are taught it by our older sisters, we are taught it by our mothers, we are taught it by watching TV. Right or wrong, it happens. And if a woman doesn't like having someone look at her or say something to her that she deems offensive, then she might be better off to cover some of her skin.

 

My son's date (first time he took her out) for a Christmas dance had a dress on that barely covered her butt. He said he was embarrassed when he picked her up and they got in the car, because her dress rode up so far when she sat down in the seat that he could see glimpses of her panty crotch and he did not know where to look. He's a teenager with racing hormones driving a car, and he has some young woman showing him pale pink panties and he's supposed to 1) pay attention to the road 2) treat her respectfully and 3) not stare at her crotch or her boobs. I chaperoned the dance, and when they walked in, I was shocked. (Actually I was shocked by about 20% of the dresses - they were inappropriate for the ages of the girls and they looked (Yes I am going to say it) cheap and slutty.)

 

And trust me - I blame her mother and father (her father was MOST unhappy with the choice of dress, but he still could have forbidden her to wear it), I blame the young woman, I blame society. I'm not suggesting we go back to corsets or crinolines, but leaving something to the imagination would be a nice change.

 

Do you agree that a woman DESERVES mistreatment if she dresses provacatively?

[denise_xo]

That is true. But challenging should not be done by encouraging women to wear clothes that are purposefully made to, as per my previous post, tantalize and sexualize themselves, and expect to waive all personal responsibility as to the consequences. I am sure there is no other reason for wearing, say, a short tube dress with killer heels - it certainly isn't for comfort or practicality.

 

I would never want to wear that kind of dress, but I will insist on a woman's right to wear those clothes without being targeted as sluts that men can by default disrespect. I have friends who have been called sluts just because they don't use headscarves. The underlying dynamics of those arguments are the same as many of the ones in this thread.

[Els]

Yes, this is the point I made earlier that women's bodies have been sexualised in ways that men's haven't.

 

Thank you. And my point is that the women who choose to dress in that manner are playing a huge part in sexualizing themselves, and, dare I say, womenkind as a whole. They aren't just the unfortunate victim of society.

[Lucky_One]

Do you agree that a woman DESERVES mistreatment if she dresses provacatively?

 

Give me a definition of "mistreatment".

[Star Gazer]

Give me a definition of "mistreatment".

 

Anything that is disrespectful.

[denise_xo]

Just in Europe?

 

Imo, this whole discussion has more to do with good upbringing and respect on the guys part than it has with actively mistreating a girl.

 

Also there is really no need for silly analogies (sports, feminism, nazis, raping: wow!) to make things "clear".

 

Well, Europe is my frame of reference so that's why I used it.

 

I referred to the nazi example because someone else used it further up. More generally, I think we will all use the analogies that we find suitable, if you don't like them, just argue against them.

[Lucky_One]

Has anybody else noticed that the OP hasn't been back since the first post?

 

Can anybody say "troll"?

 

He MIGHT be a troll, but I was one of first responses and I JUST logged back in because I have an hour or so free. If I had NOT logged back in, would I be a troll, too?

[anne1707]

Quality

Excellence

Dependability

 

It used to be an advertising slogan for Studebaker automobiles.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

[fortyninethousand322]

I would never want to wear that kind of dress, but I will insist on a woman's right to wear those clothes without being targeted as sluts that men can by default disrespect. I have friends who have been called sluts just because they don't use headscarves. The underlying dynamics of those arguments are the same as many of the ones in this thread.

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Many people (girls and guys both do this) who assail women for not covering their heads are those who went to segregated private schools and act in a manner consistent with that of a 7th grader. I assume these are Muslim girls you are talking about, and while I have on occasion been called an Islamophile (pro-Islam) guys from that faith who make assumptions about women and their choice of clothing and behavioral choices (i.e. if a girl hangs out with guys) do nothing but make a bad name for Islam.