Our Shared Shelf discussion
Archive
>
Equal rights to go topless?
Aglaea wrote: "Does clothing determine what kind of heart a person has? How smart they are? How much they contribute to society?"Indeed clothing does not determine what kind of a heart a person has. I never said otherwise. All I said was that my sons don't want to see a woman's bare legs, arms, or breasts, and they have rights, too.
Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Does clothing determine what kind of heart a person has? How smart they are? How much they contribute to society?"Indeed clothing does not determine what kind of a heart a person h..."
Absolutely, they shouldn't either. Luckily they can avert their gaze! Problem solved.
I'm not keen on people who smell really badly on public transportation or who talk super loud on the phone, so usually I just change seats.
Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Does clothing determine what kind of heart a person has? How smart they are? How much they contribute to society?"Indeed clothing does not determine what kind of a heart a person h..."
Agreed. Never saw the reason why some people judge others by their clothes. Ok, some clothes can be controverse but, like you said, that does not mean the person is.
Good, then. Can we stop arguing now? I see you're a fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Here's my "Little House" shelf, if you're curious: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list...
Kressel wrote: "Tim wrote: "And, again, I'm very sorry, but you don't get to say someone's body is completely and utterly 100% theirs, right before/after you chastise other people who put the right over their own ..."Fair enough point, but the rights you're comparing are not exactly the same. As I said, it's one group's right to be a little more comfortable vs. another group's right to wear what they please. Your argument of
"...my sons don't want to see a woman's bare legs, arms, or breasts, and they have rights, too."
demonstrates exactly what I mean. Also, I wasn't trying to censor you, I was saying you were being a little inconsistent. By "you don't get to" I meant that consistency forbade you to do/say something, not me as a censor.
Now, I would like to mention you've not addressed my main point: your religious convictions (and your sons') clearly play a fundamental role in these views, so, the only logical approach for you to convince people of your views is by convincing them of your religion first, or at least your views on marriage. It's the same as asking non-muslim women to wear burkas, or non-christians to wear crucifixes; you fundamentally cannot ask them to do that without convincing them of your beliefs first. And if you succeed at that, so long as it's through dialogue with someone who's reached the age of reason, then good for you both. I frankly don't care about what religion people choose to hold, so long as I'm sure they really chose it.
Finally, I think your argument of
"Others say that those rules should be changed, but that rule wouldn't be there if many people didn't believe in it. So who is imposing whose will on who?"
in regards to the right to go topless is an atrocious argument in general and possibly a slap in the face of at least a third of the feminist community. I can use that same argument about ANY rule you can think of, and it's not like schools or society teach people about said rules or to question them, is it? It's not like Hitler's educational system taught us that people should question laws against jews, is it? It's the same in our current patriarchal society; we're not going to be taught to question some of the patriarchal elements of our society, we're going to be taught (by society itself, which learned it the same way for generations) to simply take it for granted and put up with it.
Bottom line: there are some rules people are stigmatised for breaking and these rules are never questioned because they're about a very minute concept; that is how said rules come to be, and that is how they're enforced at the same time, if not by police force as well (which is the case here).
Now, I understand that you no longer wish to discuss this, so if you don't want to respond further, then that's totally fine, no need to say anything further. I reckon this is as good a place as any to let it rest.
Kressel wrote: "Good, then. Can we stop arguing now? I see you're a fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Here's my "Little House" shelf, if you're curious: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list......"I don't think it is a good move to stop discussing something as relevant as the content of this thread. I didn't perceive the situation to be an argument (as in bickering) but an exchange of opinions. I don't mind continuing to try to build a bridge, you know.
The whole religious stuff I've criticised in this thread isn't due to your writings only, but I've had numerous talks online elsewhere with women, who talk about modesty and clothing, and pass obvious, non-debatable judgment on other women, who happen to prefer to dress however they please, at times including garments that are rather revealing.
The "extreme" is this topless thread, of course, but even when nipples aren't bared, those women are so superior and so convinced of their own goodness that I find the attitude destructive for society as a whole, and have to speak up as a result.
Tim mentioned the crucifix and burka, and I think they are good examples of what we can't force others to wear. It's the same as forcing women of Islam to remove veils and larger garments worn due to religious convictions. We have no right.
Tim also made the point of questioning what we have "always done because that's just how it is and has been". It is uncomfortable and difficult at times, but does anyone here think the suffragettes had it easy? Yet since what they have done for us is normal now, we take it for granted without realising the blood, sweat and tears that went into the change.
Well, speaking of the suffragettes, most of them were quite religious women, and in the U.S. anyway, the main reason they wanted the vote was so that they could illegalize alcohol. All this is documented in the book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent.
Aglaea wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't me..."I'm guessing that the point of the beginning question was to determine whether I define the term 'scantily clad' with a moral leaning. Nope. I define it as underdressed. And yes, you can definitely be over or under dressed without moral implications. I'm always overdressed when I go to the beach.
I agree that we shouldn't try to impose our morality on others. But saying that we need a mutual and reciprocal social etiquette for the public sphere is not about imposing morality. It is about realizing that everyone is deserving of being treated courtesy. Even the closed minded. Even those wearing tats.
I would never get a tat, unless I was drugged and unconscious. Scared to death of needles.
Jessica wrote: "I would never get a tat, unless I was drugged and unconscious. Scared to death of needles."I used to be that way, and then I had babies.
Kressel wrote: "Jessica wrote: "I would never get a tat, unless I was drugged and unconscious. Scared to death of needles."I used to be that way, and then I had babies."
Am a mother too. Going through the c- section didn't really help get over the fear. I'm much better at hiding it though.
Thank G-d, a c-section is something I never experienced, though, in fact, I was born by one.
Aglaea wrote: "Why either or? If a woman chooses Malala's type of clothing and an education, great news! If a woman chooses less clothing and an education, great news!I've been thinking about this for a few days, and here's what I have to say. It doesn't have to be either/or, but it doesn't have to be both, either. I think you're like a "mainstream" feminist. You believe in things that would fall under the category of sexual liberation, like women's right to go topless or sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want, and you also believe in things that would fall under the category of legal rights of women, like equal pay, education, voting rights, etc. I'm a conservative feminist. Even if women have the right to sleep around, that's not a cause I'm ever going to get behind. The same thing with going topless. But I definitely want my kind of conservative feminism to be considered part of feminism, and I think Emma would want that, too.
Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Why either or? If a woman chooses Malala's type of clothing and an education, great news! If a woman chooses less clothing and an education, great news!I've been thinking about thi..."
I wouldn't put words in Emma's mouth regardless of what they are, but apart from that be happy you have someone who wants you and wishes to keep your bed warm. I don't. I'm too challenging and complicated for the average guy, too this and too that, so if I were to sleep around it would be to feel human contact at least sometimes. Humans need contact, research even backs it up. I personally can't sleep around so I get lonely, and I've been single for the most of my life. But knowing just how endless that loneliness can be, I advocate no shaming of people who choose short encounters with others. Some other people just like sex and there is nothing wrong with that. I like sex as long as it is with a soul mate, but those don't knock on my door ever, so there you have it. Maybe that makes me mainstream, but I'm proud of my efforts regardless.
Aglaea wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Why either or? If a woman chooses Malala's type of clothing and an education, great news! If a woman chooses less clothing and an education, great news!I've been th..."
The reason I say that I think Emma is interested in conservative feminists like me is what she said in her U.N. speech about the problem of many people, and women in particular, not identifying themselves as feminists. The reason for that, certainly amongst the conservative women of my community, is that even though we might agree with equal pay, equal voting rights, etc., we're turned off by things like "Women should have the right to go topless." If feminism has to be both, then many women won't count themselves as feminists.
For the record, I have NEVER advocated slut-shaming. Any kind of shaming is against my religion. It's also a bad idea in general because what goes around, comes around. (See the book So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson.) But in my college experience, young women were more likely to be shamed for being "prudes" than for being "sluts." That's why I'm here advocating for all these conservative choices as a form of self-empowerment. In this age after the sexual revolution, they've become the more stigmatized choice.
Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Why either or? If a woman chooses Malala's type of clothing and an education, great news! If a woman chooses less clothing and an education, great news..."Shaming anyone for not having "enough sex" is really low, too. I hate the intrusive questions that people can have, like it's any of anyone's business how often or seldom, when and how, another person decides to share a bed with others. It's different if the topic has been invited to, so to speak, and even then I find the lack of tact in some quite distasteful.
But we are veering off topic and should get back on track, it's just that this seems baked into the topless theme a bit :)
Aglaea wrote:"Shaming anyone for not having "enough sex" is really low, too. I hate the intrusive questions that people can have, like it's any of anyone's business how often or seldom, when and how, another person decides to share a bed with others.."What I meant was more subtle than busybody questions. What I meant is the implication from peers and especially guys that if you're not doing it, you must be repressed or have something seriously wrong with you. I think it takes a lot more courage and strength for a young woman to say no rather than yes.
*Responding to original post*
I wish we lived in a world in which women could not wear tops and feel safe doing it.
I wish we lived in a world in which women could not wear tops and feel safe doing it.
I definitely think we should be allowed to. There is no difference to me between a man being allowed to be topless and a woman.
Genuine question here not intended to sandbag anyone: for those who are more conservative and would prefer a standard of modesty in dress in public places does that not then apply to all genders? I mean theoretically you could say people have equal rights to go topless and in this space those equal rights mean nobody goes topless. The problem for me isn't with asking for people to remain quite covered in some venues it's with applying the standard unevenly. I mean I don't want anyone coming to my grandmothers funeral naked and I don't want nude beaches to be men only and women required to wear clothes.
Bunny wrote: "Genuine question here not intended to sandbag anyone: for those who are more conservative and would prefer a standard of modesty in dress in public places does that not then apply to all genders? I..."Have you seen any men attending funeral naked? The general misconception that I have addressed many times is, women wanting the same right as men to go topless where men can go topless. Not to strip naked anywhere and everywhere.
Here is a simple question you can ask yourself. Are men allowed to go topless at xxxx. Insert places into the xxxx.
Example,
Are men allowed to go topless at funerals?
No. Therefore, women aren't asking to go topless at funerals.
Are men allowed to go topless into orchestras?
No. Therefore, women aren't asking to go topless at orchestras.
Are men allowed to go topless in the courtroom?
No. Therefore women aren't asking to go topless in courtrooms.
Are men allowed to go to the beach topless?
Yes. Therefore women want the same right to be topless at the beach.
Are men allowed to be topless at their own lawn?
Yes. Therefore women want the same right to be topless at their own lawn.
Get it?
Jing Wen wrote: "Bunny wrote: "Genuine question here not intended to sandbag anyone: for those who are more conservative and would prefer a standard of modesty in dress in public places does that not then apply to ..."Basically this, yes. And the tangent that sprang off the discussion concerned morality and its connection to clothing, which is its own topic in reality.
Jing Wen, I understood that, I wasn't asking to have it explained to me. I don't know if this is a mismatch of language or custom, but I feel like you misunderstood my question and then yelled at me about it. I wish you well, and maybe in future we will come to understand one another better.
Bunny, sorry if I added to it somehow, didn't mean to. For what it's worth, I often write as frankly as Jing Wen did, and today didn't perceive any yelling in his writing. I only saw a list of clarifying examples. But if you thought there was critique of some kind, I don't intend to belittle that experience. No matter what, text is difficult when body language is absent.
No worries. One of the great things about the internet is that it allows us to open up our world to people we might not ordinarily meet. Along with that great thing comes the difficulty of interacting with people who don't have the same unspoken rules for how to talk about things. So I generally try to stay very open to the idea that sometimes misunderstanding just comes with the territory and not take it personally.
The same men that vote for pro-life candidates will be the first ones to cause a scene when a mother is breast feeding her infant in public. They go up in arms over an embryo's rights yet look down their noses in disgust when that same child is being fed by its mother. Hypocrisy at its finest
I would support all people dressing conservatively. Some men, I wouldn't want to see topless. However, I have different reasons. I have seen addiction and how it destroys many generations of families. I have seen what causes it to keep going and what helps to stop it. I support conservative dress for all people because we need to learn what victimizes victims who were repeated victims of predatory pedophiles and what helps them not do the same to others, as what was evily done to them. This has nothing to do with the Bible, or God or any religion or faith. This is solely based on what I have seen in those around me as I was sentenced to legal child crap camps. These camps are what you would call Naturalist camps in the UK. And, I did find out the story as to how many of them, came to go to those camps, as I boldly asked. When I asked, many of them were also abused. I am not saying that this is how it is in YOUR world, but it was how it was in my world, as the camps I went too, during the years I went there. Thanks!
slightly seperate subject, but I would like to know the thoughts on your views on workwear i.e I work in a factory prodomantly male dominated, and workwear... T-shirts, Polo's, Sweatshirts and flease. I could opt out but it would be frowned upon as im a supervisor, also I get nervous of wearing skirts even if they are practical ones...
Jing Wen wrote: "Bunny wrote: "Genuine question here not intended to sandbag anyone: for those who are more conservative and would prefer a standard of modesty in dress in public places does that not then apply to ..."I didn't read the original post you replied to, but I found yours revealing in the sense that most women want or do no want certain things in relation to men. Does that not imply men still define us? Shouldn't carving out our own space mean we make our own choices? Instead, we continue to be influenced, and demand certain rights because "men can do (/are allowed to) so why can't we?"
I'm sorry I don't understand how your comment relates to mine, Fiza. I'm not wanting to carve out my own separate space in which to make my own choices. Also I'm not wanting to have things just because men have them. Pretty much the opposite. I'm wanting to live in the same society along with everyone else, and be subject to the same laws unless there's some very cogent reason that the laws that apply to me should be different. The fact that my breasts have slightly more fat in them than some other breasts doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient reason for them to be governed by different laws.
As David says, like bellies and butts, everybody's got them, its just that some are bigger than others. I'm fine with rules that say cover them all up. I'm fine with rules that say here you can run around freely. What I'm not fine with is one set of rules for some people and a different set for others.
What Bunny said. In particular the last sentence.
Oh wait, maybe Fiza was responding to something Jing Wen said? I'm not sure now who she was responding to.
Also hey Aglaea! Did you ever see my post about high context/low context societies and Scandinavia? I was late in the discussion so I'm not sure if you were still following it by the time I posted.
Bunny wrote: "Also hey Aglaea! Did you ever see my post about high context/low context societies and Scandinavia? I was late in the discussion so I'm not sure if you were still following it by the time I posted."I've been a bit offline for days, which thread? Will look tomorrow, past bedtime already.
Sleep well! I am trying to remember, I will look for the thread and post a location here when I find it.
Ah, found it, it was in the Ablism thread.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
You asked
Aglaea wrote: "I still can't figure out exactly why it is that people in your country feel it appropriate to stick their nose in the business of others, when here it is a complete faux pas to do so in many instances. Rationally I understand that it happens there, but haven't yet been able to put a finger on what the big difference is. Does anyone know sociology or whatever this would categorise as? I think it'd be valuable to know..."
And then I commented on that:
I have recently been reading some discussion by Finnish writers suggesting that Finland is a relatively high context culture, at least as compared to places like Germany and the US. The idea of high and low context cultures was first proposed by anthropologist Edward Hall in....
Bunny wrote: "I'm sorry I don't understand how your comment relates to mine, Fiza. I'm not wanting to carve out my own separate space in which to make my own choices. Also I'm not wanting to have things just bec..."It was a reply to Jing Wen as I didn't read your original post.
Having said, I agree with most of what you've about equal laws. What I don't get is why wouldn't you (and others if its applicable to them) wouldn't want a space to make your own choices? Isn't it what you are trying to say in the rest of your post?
Secondly, my post mostly relates to women who give their reasons of having/not having something because of men. I think women shouldn't fight for their rights on the backs of males, and vice versa of course.
Fiza I'm sorry it seems like I'm understanding you even less now. What does this mean?:What I don't get is why wouldn't you (and others if its applicable to them) wouldn't want a space to make your own choices? Isn't it what you are trying to say in the rest of your post?
I don't understand how a space to make my own choices even comes into the matter. We are talking about rules about how people conduct themselves in public and saying those rules should be the same for everyone. How does carving out my own space or having a space to make my own choices come into it? Sure I want a space of my own, I have one, and you know I can go as topless as I please in my own space. But that's not what we are talking about, so I'm confused by how my own space relates to this. Is it a tangent? Or is there some connection I don't understand? Confused.
Fiza wrote: "Secondly, my post mostly relates to women who give their reasons of having/not having something because of men. I think women shouldn't fight for their rights on the backs of males, and vice versa of course."In the case of baring one's chest, why shouldn't we have the same rule apply to all people?
In this case I don't think it's applicable to make it a situation of comparison aka 1) "since men can, women should be able to as well", but 2) "all people should be allowed to show their chest"/"nobody should be allowed to show their chest".
There's a fine nuance in there when comparing 1) with 2).
I believe that is a good question, Why does everyone flip when a woman goes topless? I, myself, would not go around topless, I would not encourage a woman to go topless (given the fact that men (probably drunk) would gravitate towards that), however, I myself as a woman would not be particularly comfortable seeing neither woman or man topless. It is just my preference, and I believe many other people from the Middle East (particularly Muslims) would agree. It is against the rules of Islam for any woman/man to view nudity, regardless if it is just the top half. So, therefore, I am saying this and in no way looking for trouble, I think it's best for both genders to just keep their tops on.
Slut-shaming. I just want to say right now that unless you know for sure she is a slut, don't comment on it. A slut is a woman who sleeps around and/or has many sexual partners.
If a girl is wearing a crop top/skirt/shorts/tank top/ basically revealing clothes, it does not mean she is a slut. Perhaps she's just confident in her own skin.
Even then a woman shouldn't be slut shamed, I mean, you don't see guys being man-whore-shamed.
I haven't really seen breastfeeding in public since all the malls in my country have a breastfeeding room in food courts and bathrooms so... But I have seen a women breastfeeding on an airplane before but nobody really mind it since she had a blanket covering her. I guess people should try doing that more? Cover their breasts with a blanket?
The cop from the link should've been arrested, and the reasons for why he wasn't were not proper reasons at all. He killed an infant and that is inexcuseable. He killed an infant. An INFANT. And he was released. Somehow I doubt that would've been allowed had the cop been black. Shows just how much power a white cop has.
Alia wrote: "I believe that is a good question, Why does everyone flip when a woman goes topless? I, myself, would not go around topless, I would not encourage a woman to go topless (given the fact that men (pr..."I don't see why their beliefs should force me to wear a shirt.... If i believe I'm not supposed to view nudity and define nudity as skin, should everyone be forced to wear full clothing. If i believe eating meat is a sin, should everyone abstain from eating in my presence?
We cannot build rules that violate other peoples freedoms because someone doesn't like it or will be offended.
Aglaea wrote: "Fiza wrote: "Secondly, my post mostly relates to women who give their reasons of having/not having something because of men. I think women shouldn't fight for their rights on the backs of males, an..."But doesn't the arguments here and otherwise show a transition from 1 to 2. The idea is: women should have the "right" to go topless because men have no legal repercussions when they do so, and therefore we should all be allowed (/not allowed) to go topless as we should have equal rights.
Maybe I am being picky and picking a bone with how most of our ideas of rights originate from what men are allowed to do. Again, it's a lot to do with history and sociology, and I concede that not all people hold this belief or even progression in thought. A lot still do, and you can see within this thread as an example.
Benjamin wrote: "Alia wrote: "I believe that is a good question, Why does everyone flip when a woman goes topless? I, myself, would not go around topless, I would not encourage a woman to go topless (given the fact..."It was simply my opinion, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. 1) I don't have the power to, and 2) I don't even have the right to, so...
Alia wrote: "It is an actual sin for Muslims to view the other gender nude, that is why they would prefer not to, that however, is not a sin for most Americans which is why you would object to that, and I understand but I also think you should respect Muslims (or other religions who have the same preference). ..."The title of the thread is equal rights to go topless. So one way for everyone to be equal would be for everyone to be equally topless. But another way would be for everyone to be equally required to wear tops. That's still equal. The point is not that everyone should be allowed to go topless everywhere - nudity for all in every place! The point is don't be unequal about it.
Bunny wrote: "Fiza I'm sorry it seems like I'm understanding you even less now. What does this mean?:What I don't get is why wouldn't you (and others if its applicable to them) wouldn't want a space to make yo..."
Hmm...I see we misunderstood each other. Your comment to my initial one in response to Jing's was "I'm sorry I don't understand how your comment relates to mine, Fiza. I'm not wanting to carve out my own separate space in which to make my own choices. Also I'm not wanting to have things.."
In response to the above, I wondered why wouldn't you want a separate space of your own to make your choices?
Having your present comment, I see we don't have the same definition of space, I suppose, and how it relates to the topic of the thread. You wonder what code of conduct has to with having one's own space. I hadn't even considered that!
I am somehow fixated on wanting the right to go topless because men having the freedom to do so, and women should too because we should all have equal rules. Then I wondered why should our wants/rights originate from men's. Like it or not, the history, and even the cotemporary cases, of most rights does have a base in men. So by extension I wonder why? Why can women not have a certain right because it is the right freedom that we need as humans to live our lives rightfully? Instead, some women want to go (/or not go) topless because men are allowed to. Why is that? Of course, the common answer is men and women are equal etc. But I think there is more to it.
Fiza I definitely agree that we aren't understanding one another. I feel like you are thinking the only reason a woman would want to go topless would be to prove a point? But otherwise she wouldn't? Really for me its not about wanting what men have just because men have it. Its about wanting things because they are nice, or fun or whatever and then wanting to know why I can't have the nice thing when clearly that other person over there has it....Look, I like cake. If someone told me only men could have cake, I wouldn't be happy. But its not because I am taking my ideas about what kind of food I should have from men, its because I like cake.
Our Shared Shelf
Books mentioned in this topic
So You've Been Publicly Shamed (other topics)Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (other topics)
I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban (other topics)
[psi] (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jon Ronson (other topics)Daniel Okrent (other topics)
Laura Ingalls Wilder (other topics)
Laura Ingalls Wilder (other topics)
Charles Bukowski (other topics)
More...
Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO think I am generous, though I doubt you'll believe it. My personal philosophy is to live a conservative life personally, and have a liberal attitude toward others. The judgment in the words "scantily clad" does not compare to the words "work of the devil," which I never used. (As a Jew, I don't believe in a devil.) Perhaps I should have stuck to "halter tops and shorts" - just the facts, no interpretation.
The original case is about women going topless, which is already prohibited in most public places. Others say that those rules should be changed, but that rule wouldn't be there if many people didn't believe in it. So who is imposing whose will on who?