EnMasse Forum Index EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   TATToday's Active Topics 
 ProfileProfile   Voting CentreVoting Centre   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  Front PageFront Page Front Page SubmissionsFront Page Submissions LinksLinks Acceptable Use PolicyAcceptable Use Policy  DonateDonate 

 

 


How should young women dress?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    EnMasse Forum Index -> Feminism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6883
Location: slandered, libeled

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I haven't wavered, but while we're on the subject of interpreting each other's posts, I think you're trying to take me to task for not qualifying "Catholic teaching" with the usual "but not all Catholics are like this" disclaimer. I steadfastly refuse to include teaching that is against Catholic doctrine in my definition of "Catholic teaching" and will not pause to give these "good" Catholics a cookie. If anything, I think they need to acknowledge that their efforts have had no substantive impact (link again, for convenience, to Kaveny's article) and that a consequence, however unintended, of their support is to give legitimacy to extremist anti-woman, anti-gay views: Hey, the Catholic Church isn't so bad because I'm a decent person and I'm Catholic. Look over here at the Catholic doing humanitarian work or over here at the Catholics supporting the ordination of women priests. But not at the excommunication of those helping a nine-year-old impregnated by her step-father procure an abortion. That last one is "Catholic teaching on female sexuality", the second one isn't, and you're going to have to pry that cookie from my cold, dead hands with a crowbar.


I think you're still misunderstanding my position. I'm not defending the Church at all, nor individual Catholics qua Catholics. That is, I'm not saying that anything progressive that goes on in a Catholic school is neccessarily linked in any way to Catholic teaching.

When I praised the drama teacher for his introduction to my Fortune And Mens Eyes monologue, for example, you'll note that I didn't say "And this just goes to show how Catholic teaching can be applied to advance the cause of social justice for gays and lesbians". Because that's not what I was arguing.

Quote:
I think they need to acknowledge that their efforts have had no substantive impact (link again, for convenience, to Kaveny's article)


Interesting that you're quoting Commonweal magazine, which bills itself as "edited by lay Catholics", in defense of your position that Catholic institutions are incapable of doing anything progresive".

Quote:
Liberal in temperament - opinionated and engaged, but tolerant in tone - the magazine’s editorial strategy was (and continues to be) to reject sectarianism and to rely on reasoned discussion. It has never shrunk, however, from taking strong and controversial positions. When it declared its neutrality during the Spanish Civil War (1938), circulation plummeted by 20 percent. During World War II, it condemned the firebombing of Dresden and the use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It criticized American racism, the anti-Semitism of Father Charles Coughlin, and the smear tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy; supported resistance to U.S. involvement in Vietnam; and took issue with the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae vitae. Never large in circulation (20,000 over the last decade), Commonweal is nonetheless considered an influential source of reflective Catholic opinion.



Granted, Commomweal is not a wing of the Catholic Church. However, according to its "Staff" page...

Quote:
Robert G. Hoyt (1922-2003) was with Commonweal from 1988 to 2002 as senior writer, Hoyt edited the journal’s Correspondence pages, solicited, edited, and/or rewrote articles, and wrote promotional copy. Previously: founding editor, National Catholic Reporter; associate editor, then editor, Christianity and Crisis; editor, American Report. His writing appeared in Harper’s, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday, America, the Critic, and other publications. Educated at Saint Norbert College and the University of Missouri at Kansas City.



Quote:
James O’Gara (1918-2003), was editor of Commonweal from 1967 to 1978. He joined the staff in 1952 as managing editor. A native of Chicago, O’Gara was active in the Catholic Worker movement[/b[b]], and subsequently editor of Today and U.S. Catholic magazines before coming to Commonweal.



Quote:
Associate Editor Grant Gallicho
Gallicho has been working at Commonweal since 2000. His work has appeared in America magazine, the National Catholic Reporter, the Tablet of London, El Ciervo of Spain, the New York Observer, Religion News Service, and elsewhere. He was educated at Fordham University and the University of Chicago. He lives in Brooklyn.



(The Tablet, I believe, is a Catholic magzine in England.)

Quote:
Managing Editor Patrick Jordan
Joined the Commonweal staff in 1984. He is a former managing editor of the Catholic Worker, a Vietnam-era draft resister, attended the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley, and for seven years worked with terminal cancer patients. With Paul Baumann, he edited Commonweal Confronts the Century (Touchstone, 1999), and is the editor of Dorothy Day: Writings from Commonweal (Liturgical Press). He and his wife Kathleen live on Staten Island. They have two adult children, Hannah and Justin.



(I'm assuming Liturgical Press is a Catholic imprint.)

So, most of these people would seem to have a background in Catholic doctrine(including, I would assume, the "benign sexism" you were talking about), as well as having some pretty close career and personal connections to the more orthodox Catholic institutions. Yet, somehow, they're able to put together a magazine progressive enough to publish an article(by a professor at the University Of Notre Dame) which you cite approvingly in your critique of the Catholic church.

I guess all I'm saying is that, if it's possible for a Notre Dame theology professor to write an effective critique of Church sexism, and for that article to be published in a Catholic lay journal, then it's probably possible for SOME of the teachers at my particular Catholic school, circa 1985, to have been teaching things, and in an effective manner, that were more enlightened that what they would have been teaching had they hewed more closely to the central church authority.

Oh, and I take your critique of the statistics on Catholic attitudes. I will observe, though, that the question asked in the Australian survey was somewhat different than the one in Pew. The statement in the Australian survey was "I believe homosexuality to be immoral", agree or disagree. In the Pew poll, they asked "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?". But I'm not exactly sure how to interpret either result, since I think there could be varying interpretations of both questions, the distinction between homosexual persons and homosexual actions being just one of them. There is also the question of just what is meant by the word "accept".

I still suspect that the relatively high number of tolerant Catholics(in comparison to most other Christian groups) is because of the tendency of lapsed Catholics to continue identifying themselves as Catholic after they've lapsed. Then again, I've known sexually active unlapsed gay Catholics, so it's also possible that there are more Catholics who stay in the fold after deciding they don't believe major church doctrines. Overall, though, I'd imagine that if you were to poll only mass-attending Catholics(not counting the Christmas/Easter only crowd), you'd get less tolerant results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Re: How should young women dress? Reply with quote

Tehanu wrote:
... I certainly wince when I see prepubescent girls dressed in what could only be termed as adult clothing, and while I'm all in favour of women being able to express their sexuality, there's certainly an element of exploitation and objectification as well. And when it's kids?


WTF: "Kids' lingerie" photos featuring Miley Cyrus' 9-year-old sister on a stripper pole?

Quote:
The great Chris Rock once said (I'm paraphrasing a bit), you know you've really fckd up as a parent if your daughter ends up on a stripper pole.

The 9 year old sister of Disney megastar Miley Cyrus is reported to be promoting a (man this feels weird to type) lingerie line for children. The highly sexualized photos that appear to to promote that clothing line show children posing around a stripper pole. Related images basically present the kids as cute li'l whores. I just vomited in my keyboard.

Related: in 2009, according to the LA Times, 16-year-old Miley danced around a stripper pole during her Fox Teen Choice Awards performance. Whiskey, tango, foxtrot, people. Seriously.

Most who read this post will (I hope) agree: promotional photos that show scantily clad and made-up little girls flirting at the camera from behind a stripper pole are totally wrong and sad. But, question. Who's to blame? The parents? The agents? The managers? The publicists? The garment company? The studios (I guess Disney, in this case)? All of the above?

Update: the photos are real, but the clothing company involved says there's no lingerie line, and they're not responsible for how the child celebrity linked with their line is accessorized or portrayed. "We just make tutu dresses, tank tops attached to tutus," says the founder. Worth noting: whether or not you call it "kid's lingerie" (gag), the company did link to the "girls on stripper poles" photos directly from their website, and noted the name of the celebrity kids in their garments, which implied endorsement.

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1224

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting that the clothing company is now denying an actual "lingerie line".

I guess Billy Ray is bent on making every dime he can from his kids if he couldn't make it the 'biz himself. I guess it beats taking on a day job.

Makes you wonder how the tabloid headlines are going to read in 10, 15 years' time. He's messing those kids up, big time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tehanu
More or less, more or less


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 18014
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation

PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why Gloria Steinam is my favourite liberal feminist, bar none.

She's promoting a new documentary on her life and work, and has some really cool things to say about young feminists (they're stronger than ever), choices in dress, popular culture, and ongoing progress.

Quote:
... Steinem, elegant and sophisticated in late middle age, was in the room to promote the HBO documentary Gloria: In Her Own Words, Emmy-winning filmmaker Peter Kunhardt’s first-person biography ... The film, which premieres Monday, Aug. 15, on HBO, juxtaposes interviews with Steinem in her Manhattan apartment against archival footage, still photographs from throughout her life, and clippings from her numerous press interviews through the decades.

... “This generation of young women is actually much more feminist than we ever were. If you look at the public opinion polls, they’re actually much more supportive of all the issues of equality. And my question to the young woman who is dressing as you describe is: Is she doing it because she wants to? Is she body-proud? Is she sexuality-proud? Because then, I say, great. Is she doing it because she feels she has to? That she won’t be popular otherwise? Then, that’s wrong.

“Reese Witherspoon, whom I don’t know very well, told me she did Legally Blonde because of me. I said, ‘No kidding. How come?’ And she said, ‘Because I heard you say you should be able to dress any way you f—ing well please and be safe.’ “

... Asked if the objectification of women in mainstream popular culture is driven by a marketplace “that makes money out of making women feel badly about themselves” and politics, Steinem replied, “Well, to me, that’s kind of the same thing. Politics is just unequal power. Who does the dishes is political. In the politics of commerciality, if you want to put it that way, the way women’s bodies are looked at, we’re supposed to be ornaments, not instruments.”

Steinem said she hopes audiences who see the documentary will think to themselves, “OK, society has come this far in 30 to 40 years. Where does it go from here?”

“If you look at any social movement — if you think of the suffragists, abolitionists and other movements, they had to last about 100 years to be really absorbed into a culture. And we’re 40 years into this. So I don’t know how to break it to you, but we have, like, 60 years to go. I mean, I’m old, but the movement is young. So I hope people take encouragement from this documentary.”

... “I think we’re blaming the victim. One of the editors in New York who was working on this documentary said, ‘Tell me why young women are now willing to be texted to go and give blow jobs.’ I said, ‘OK, that’s a really good question — but why are you not asking why young men believe it’s acceptable to text somebody to give a blow job?’ It’s perfectly clear why young women, in order to be popular, feel they are supposed to supply sex. It’s a big problem, and one we have to work on. What we have to do is change the inducements and stop blaming the victims.”

Progress is a constantly evolving process, Steinem said.

“We have to be careful not to have terminal gratitude, as I think of it,” she said. “We need to be always looking forward. Nothing in inexorable. Nothing. It depends on what you and I do every day, all of us here, every day. It depends on the language we use with each other. It depends on whether we tell each other our salaries, to find out who’s not getting paid. All these movements are inextricably connected.”

As for whether Steinem is gratified by her successes so far, or discouraged by how much work remains, she replied, deadpan and without missing a beat, “It depends on what day it is.”


In the National Post, surprisingly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5766
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a Christian thought on modesty (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Matthew 5:27-28 is a source of much tension among men: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Instead of taking this as a charge to practice self-control over their own thoughts and sexuality, many men decided it would be easier to shift much of this responsibility towards women. So long as women were dressed modestly – that is, in such a way that wouldn’t give dudes boners – there would be no chance of men committing adultery in their hearts, remaining pure as God intended.

...

Besides, covering up doesn’t necessarily solve anything. In her memoir Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali recounts the words of her male friend after the Muslim Brotherhood moved into Somalia, drastically influencing the way women dressed.

“Before the Brotherhood came, you could see everyone’s arms and legs. We never used to notice. But now that the women are covering so much, all I can think about is those round calves and the hair, smelling of coconut. I never used to think about a neck before, but ooh, a neck is so sexy now.” P. 135

Wait, so even if the women were fully covered, men were still getting worked up over necks and calves? What to do then? Just keep women inside? Unfortunately, some do just that. Or, you know, men could respect and honour women and their bodies like Jesus said – practice self control and not freak the hell out over the fact that women are shaped like women. Women are human and deserve as much control over their own bodies and choices as men.

...

The great C.S Lewis brings home the gold in Mere Christianity when he says “a girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes” could be considered modest according to the standards of her own society. He goes on to explain:

“I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ‘emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.” p. 95

_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 2431
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Matthew 5:27-28 is a source of much tension among men: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Instead of taking this as a charge to practice self-control over their own thoughts and sexuality, many men decided it would be easier to shift much of this responsibility towards women. So long as women were dressed modestly – that is, in such a way that wouldn’t give dudes boners – there would be no chance of men committing adultery in their hearts, remaining pure as God intended.

For a second I thought I was reading the whole quote and was like...man, King James has undergone some significant revisions.
_________________
Certain readers resented me when they could no longer recognize their territory, their institution. Jacques Derrida.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3677
Location: tahsis, british columbia

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How should young women dress?
Well, out here right now gumboots and rain slickers would be a good choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5766
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anne cameron wrote:
How should young women dress?
Well, out here right now gumboots and rain slickers would be a good choice.
ROTFL
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5766
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Utah school alters yearbook pictures:

Quote:
A group of Utah high school students said they were stunned and upset to discover their school yearbook photos were digitally altered, with sleeves and higher necklines drawn on to cover up bare skin.

Several students at Wasatch High School in Heber City say their outfits followed the public school’s dress code and they’ve worn them on campus many times.

“I feel like they’re trying to shame you of your body,” said sophomore Shelby Baum, who discovered a high, square neckline was drawn on her black, V-neck T-shirt.

Baum told The Salt Lake Tribune she was upset to learn a tattoo on her collarbone was erased from her photo. She said she consulted the school dress code before getting the tattoo, a line of script that reads “I am enough the way I am.”


Meanwhile, in Labrador (emphasis mine):

Quote:
A professor at Memorial University in St. John's says the teenage girls who were sent home from school for wearing clothing considered contrary to the dress code are scapegoats, and that the male students and teachers they apparently were distracting should be the ones under the microscope.


No kidding! And why are the male teachers distracted?

Do you want to know how to teach young males to respect their female counterparts? It's not by covering up the females, it's saying to males, "this female is a human being and deserves to be treated with respect in all circumstances." Mad
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3677
Location: tahsis, british columbia

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bring on the burkha... protect the males from temptation... poor weak-willed things are SO easily tempted...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 7841
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think niqabs are sexy.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1224

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not against dress codes for school. Save the beach wear, saggy pants with your underwear showing and daisy duke shorts for more casual settings. I do, however, think the distraction of males is the wrong reason for a dress code. That's just stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3677
Location: tahsis, british columbia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doubt they'd hold down a job dressed like that... and isn't school supposed to be a sort-of introduction to what will be encountered when they head out into the wide world?

However, if males are that easily distracted perhaps they...and those male teachers... should be in a Special Needs class...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 1641

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yet another gem from the prairies.

I just heard on the radio that Saskatoon cops threatened to ticket a woman as a stripper, who was in fact not in the trade. They just didn't like what she was wearing. The piece hasn't hit the internet yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
abnormal
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 505
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TS. wrote:
JPG wrote:
OTOH, it is a uniform to begin with. By attending the school, every student is being told what to wear.

I don't agree that that is a good thing either. I've argued against school uniforms in the past.


Actually I'm generally in favour of school uniforms. [I should qualify my comments with the observation that both my kids went to private schools for their entire K-12 career but around here even the public schools require uniforms].

The big plus, there is no competition regarding who can wear the most expensive fashionable clothes to school. Knapsacks aren't subject to rules and you can't stop the kids discussing their ski vacation in Zermatt while their classmates stayed home and helped with chores.

To comment on an earlier post, when I was in high school if a teacher thought a girl's skirt was too short they were sent to the principal's office and made to kneel on the floor - if the skirt didn't touch ...

Of course that didn't stop the girls from hitting the washroom as soon as classes were dismissed and rolling up their skirts so they were several inches shorter than the rules required.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cco
Jacobin


Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1882
Location: love of one's country is a terrible thing

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timebandit wrote:
I'm not against dress codes for school. Save the beach wear, saggy pants with your underwear showing and daisy duke shorts for more casual settings. I do, however, think the distraction of males is the wrong reason for a dress code. That's just stupid.

The problems with school dress codes are manifold. For one, attending a public school isn't a voluntary act. For another, these codes that are conceived of (or, more likely, justified) in idealized circumstances (I never once saw a single man or woman at my high school show up in a bikini or swim trunks) are typically implemented in highly racialized and sexist ways. In practice, all they amount to is yet another way for the older generation to tell the younger generation they're a bunch of sluts. Note that these stories are never about a boy showing up to school naked. They're always about girls who look just a *little* too tempting for the boys, and we all know it's a girl's responsibility to manage a teenage boy's hormones, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1224

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think there's anything wrong with learning to dress appropriately for the situation. I didn't generally want to go to work when I had a regular job, but that was kind of mandatory, too - and it didn't mean I could get away with cutoffs and a tank top. Time and place.

Tying it to sexualization and the tempting of boys is wrongheaded. I'd like to see that stop. Learning to be socially appropriate, for both male and female students, wouldn't hurt anybody.

I've had an employee show up to a conference I paid for her to attend in a completely inappropriate outfit, which was pretty damned embarrassing and incredibly awkward to have to broach with her. So you know, maybe she would have learned something from a dress code in her school years and saved us some trouble.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cco
Jacobin


Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1882
Location: love of one's country is a terrible thing

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timebandit wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with learning to dress appropriately for the situation. I didn't generally want to go to work when I had a regular job, but that was kind of mandatory, too - and it didn't mean I could get away with cutoffs and a tank top. Time and place.


That's a little facetious, isn't it? Surely you understand the difference between "if I don't show up to work, I'll lose this job I voluntarily took" and "if I don't go to school, mom and dad go to jail".

Eternal optimist that I am, I'm hoping that with generational change comes the idea that what a person is wearing matters less than what's inside her head, and that we can all just get used to seeing the occasional bra strap without collapsing into libidinous fervor. Down the road of government-mandated "modesty" lies the burka.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1224

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The difference is slight, cco. My elder daughter could technically drop out at this point (not that she wants to face the wrath of Mom). She is choosing to be there. There's a code of conduct, and there is no reason not to expect people to dress appropriately - an expectation that should not be tied to sexualizing young women.

Sure, what's in someone's head is more important than their clothing. But are you going to take someone seriously when they're gardening in a ball gown? Probably not. You can buck social conventions, but there is a cost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3677
Location: tahsis, british columbia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The claim the males, including male teachers, are being distracted is pathetic and very insulting to the males. That said, some of the "styles" being worn by some girls and women are, to my old eyes, decidedly "slutty" but let's not forget we are all influenced by advertising and by media and the purported stars of both large and small screens. If society as a whole is going to laugh and accept "wardrobe malfunctions" which have been carefully planned and choreographed, and if the sponsors and executives are going to allow performances such as the one with Miley Cyrus and that other old fart, then we can hardly be too surprised when the young and impressionable imitate the behaviour. After all, those who parade and cavort in "suggestive" clothing are being paid large sums, and isn't that the present standard of success? It's not quite monkey see monkey do, but it's close. That said I have to admit the sight of a bra strap isn't really that much of a turn-on. One does hope it's clean! We have only to look at that disgusting show where ittybitty toddlers are dressed up like Daisy Mae and paraded in a beauty pageant and we can see that good taste has vanished. Hard to believe they find sponsors for that shite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cco
Jacobin


Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1882
Location: love of one's country is a terrible thing

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, maybe there's a progression here. The need of each generation to be "sluttier" (UGH at that term) than the last (in their parents' eyes) will eventually result in a classroom where everyone comes to school naked. Then, like cultures where female toplessness is the norm, everyone will eventually get used to it. And maybe after that, we can all return to a world free of frenetic obsession over just how covered people's bodies are.

Ah, who am I kidding? Climate change will drown us all long before then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    EnMasse Forum Index -> Feminism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
TATToday's Active Topics


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group