silly character limits.
so lauren and i have been getting into it a little in our comments to the last post about sexually charged clothing and women. but my last response was too long for a comment, apparently, so now everyone gets to read it! say it with me:
yay.
for context, though, you might want to go back and read the comments on the last post.
lauren --
while i agree with your assessment of the way things are, i disagree with the inherent acceptance of those things i feel in your response. you know me, and how i dress, and you know that i have a healthy respect for fashion as a medium of communication -- your clothes are a way of expressing your personality to the world, of broadcasting everything from your age to your taste in music, your sexuality, national origin, and your politics. however, as a method of communication, clothes are not meant to justify sexual assault, or even sexual harassment. commonly, the problem is in the interpretation -- when men read a short skirt as a beacon of sexual availability and act on it, that's a misinterpretation. a short skirt is more commonly a statement of how the wearer feels about her thighs than what she wants between them.
there is little to no way around the fact that people dress however makes them feel "good," and "good" in that sense has more than a smattering of "sexually attractive" mixed in. yet being sexually attractive has less to do with being sexually available than is commonly thought.
i've gotten into a vaguely related debate with my friend naomi a couple of times now. the question revolves around whether men have the right (through freedom of speech) to catcall women as they pass them on the street (i think yes, she's sticking with no). but the rights question is secondary to what is actually happening -- men feel that they are allowed to catcall women because they live in a society where women are primarily sexual objects for their use (my feminism is showing), and women feel a powerlessness to respond because the same society demands that they deny their own sexuality in order to protect themselves. The irritation that most of us feel when this happens is (at least in my experience) more a frustration at the lack of response options (thanking them seems silly, and is commonly seen as an opening; while yelling at them only provokes a fight and puts us in more danger; and sarcastically accepting whatever offer they've seen fit to yell has the terrifying potential of them failing to notice the sarcasm), and the fact that it's completely socially unacceptable and dangerous* for us to do the same to them.**
so basically, honey, it's a thorny issue. but my biggest sticking point is that while i don't know if it's a matter of right or law, i do think it's an issue of social courtesy -- polite people don't make oversexualized comments to strangers, no matter what they might be wearing.
and on the slut thing, i was referring more to the female reinforcement of negative social stereotypes for women who appear too sexual, i.e. the rejection of that woman from social groups, the siding with men about her status as "whore." this can be clearly seen in both the duke and kobe bryant rape cases, where the women who had suffered a sexual assault were then stigmatized for their previous sexual availability. which is why a lot of states have passed laws disallowing the survivor's sexual history from being used in court. which is different from what friends might call each other.
*tangent: the dangerous thing is really the kicker. i had the opportunity to listen to my boss interview a number of applicants for a job with our office the other day, a job which requires the ability to interact on a regular basis with mental unstable and potentially dangerous clients. she asked a lot of questions about safety and the person's history with situations where they might feel endangered. the female applicants all expressed a confidence based on experience and an awareness of the world around them that we are all taught when we're young -- don't walk to your car in a dark parking lot without your keys out and in your hand; always be aware of how many people are around you; notice the warning signs that someone is angry or upset and potentially dangerous -- while the male applicant i listened to, at least, presented a complete obliviousness about these sorts of issues. when asked about situations where he had felt endangered, he wracked his brain to come up with the one time he'd been in a fight, while the female applicants all talked at length about being the presence of physically threatening and upset clients. i don't think this is a biological difference between the sexes and that women are more aware or emotionally in tune with other or blah blah blah, i think it's clearly a demonstration of how women are taught to fear men. to me, one of the biggest issues of gender equality (and i don't deny that it's strongly related to the fact that women ARE in danger from men) is that awareness -- women live in a world where they are constantly threatened, and men live blissfully unaware of that threat.
**caveat: i generally get the nicer variety of catcall, things like "hey momma, nice ass," instead of the "c'mon baby and suck my balls" or other invitations. i think i've blogged about this before. i have a lot of friends who get the latter, and i feel for them.
p.s. i'm going to africa. specifically, Lagos, Nigeria. in january. GO ME.
yay.
for context, though, you might want to go back and read the comments on the last post.
lauren --
while i agree with your assessment of the way things are, i disagree with the inherent acceptance of those things i feel in your response. you know me, and how i dress, and you know that i have a healthy respect for fashion as a medium of communication -- your clothes are a way of expressing your personality to the world, of broadcasting everything from your age to your taste in music, your sexuality, national origin, and your politics. however, as a method of communication, clothes are not meant to justify sexual assault, or even sexual harassment. commonly, the problem is in the interpretation -- when men read a short skirt as a beacon of sexual availability and act on it, that's a misinterpretation. a short skirt is more commonly a statement of how the wearer feels about her thighs than what she wants between them.
there is little to no way around the fact that people dress however makes them feel "good," and "good" in that sense has more than a smattering of "sexually attractive" mixed in. yet being sexually attractive has less to do with being sexually available than is commonly thought.
i've gotten into a vaguely related debate with my friend naomi a couple of times now. the question revolves around whether men have the right (through freedom of speech) to catcall women as they pass them on the street (i think yes, she's sticking with no). but the rights question is secondary to what is actually happening -- men feel that they are allowed to catcall women because they live in a society where women are primarily sexual objects for their use (my feminism is showing), and women feel a powerlessness to respond because the same society demands that they deny their own sexuality in order to protect themselves. The irritation that most of us feel when this happens is (at least in my experience) more a frustration at the lack of response options (thanking them seems silly, and is commonly seen as an opening; while yelling at them only provokes a fight and puts us in more danger; and sarcastically accepting whatever offer they've seen fit to yell has the terrifying potential of them failing to notice the sarcasm), and the fact that it's completely socially unacceptable and dangerous* for us to do the same to them.**
so basically, honey, it's a thorny issue. but my biggest sticking point is that while i don't know if it's a matter of right or law, i do think it's an issue of social courtesy -- polite people don't make oversexualized comments to strangers, no matter what they might be wearing.
and on the slut thing, i was referring more to the female reinforcement of negative social stereotypes for women who appear too sexual, i.e. the rejection of that woman from social groups, the siding with men about her status as "whore." this can be clearly seen in both the duke and kobe bryant rape cases, where the women who had suffered a sexual assault were then stigmatized for their previous sexual availability. which is why a lot of states have passed laws disallowing the survivor's sexual history from being used in court. which is different from what friends might call each other.
*tangent: the dangerous thing is really the kicker. i had the opportunity to listen to my boss interview a number of applicants for a job with our office the other day, a job which requires the ability to interact on a regular basis with mental unstable and potentially dangerous clients. she asked a lot of questions about safety and the person's history with situations where they might feel endangered. the female applicants all expressed a confidence based on experience and an awareness of the world around them that we are all taught when we're young -- don't walk to your car in a dark parking lot without your keys out and in your hand; always be aware of how many people are around you; notice the warning signs that someone is angry or upset and potentially dangerous -- while the male applicant i listened to, at least, presented a complete obliviousness about these sorts of issues. when asked about situations where he had felt endangered, he wracked his brain to come up with the one time he'd been in a fight, while the female applicants all talked at length about being the presence of physically threatening and upset clients. i don't think this is a biological difference between the sexes and that women are more aware or emotionally in tune with other or blah blah blah, i think it's clearly a demonstration of how women are taught to fear men. to me, one of the biggest issues of gender equality (and i don't deny that it's strongly related to the fact that women ARE in danger from men) is that awareness -- women live in a world where they are constantly threatened, and men live blissfully unaware of that threat.
**caveat: i generally get the nicer variety of catcall, things like "hey momma, nice ass," instead of the "c'mon baby and suck my balls" or other invitations. i think i've blogged about this before. i have a lot of friends who get the latter, and i feel for them.
p.s. i'm going to africa. specifically, Lagos, Nigeria. in january. GO ME.