In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Be Ashamed.

Jill

There’s so much going on here that I don’t even know where to start:

shame

From a website called “Modesty Zone,” which is targeted entirely at women (their other products include a t-shirt which reads “Girls Gone Mild” on the front, and “Be Daring. Keep Your Shirt On” on the back).

Because remember, kids, the female body is shameful. Hide it. Especially if you’re a cow.

56 thoughts on Be Ashamed.

  1. Hi Jill,

    Along these lines (re: covering up the female body), you might be interested in my post about my trip to India, where I reflect on some things that touched my “inner liberal” a bit:

    http://conservativerealist.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-indiathe-other-side.html

    Of course, I wrote a conservative post too, but you’re probably more interested in this one. 😉 Basically I muse about, what is it about a woman’s legs in India that equates “trying to keep cool” with being “oversexualized” or a “bad daughter or daughter-in-law?”

    A lot of that relates to the burkha debate as well. We can choose to cover up by choice, but when we are shamed into doing it because to show skin would be bad or give a bad impression to some male relative, it feels much different. Especially when you are raised dressing comfortably and you suddenly visit a country where you can’t.

  2. Wait, so are they saying that the cows in those California Cheese commercials are shameless sluts?

    I’m so confused.

  3. This is great! I love it when they slip and admit what they’re really all about. Shame, self-hate and obedience; that’s what the culture warriors of the right offer women.

  4. Wait, so are they saying that the cows in those California Cheese commercials are shameless sluts?

    If they give out milk without making you buy them, then obviously yes.

  6. Shame seems a bit of an odd choice. You’d think they want to ask if they’ve “got modesty.” Odd.

    Ah well. I tend to come down a bit in the middle. While I don’t like the idea of teling women their bodies are shameful there has also been a fairly disturbing trend in kids clothes that borders on child pornography. Maybe I’m becoming a bit of a prude but somehow seeing a pre-teen girl in a shirt that asks me to “get some” is just unnerving.

  9. You’re right Jill. Girls are ugly. They suck. They should go away and hide, because walking outside naked or with tight clothes is a definite way to bring respect to yourself.

    Fools.

    Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts. They have sex with them, they pay them, but they don’t respect them. The ones (girls) who think wearing tight clothes is attractive are not respected at all, since they don’t even have the guts to respect themselves. They might look sexy, but that’s all there is there.

    But go on.Shout: Wear sexy clothing or better yet: wear nothing! Be free!

    You think it somehow “empowers” you. You just make yourselves into easily accessible tools that are pretty to look at. Lustful men won’t mind a single bit that you do this. Or do you want just that?

    When will you ever grow up? I guarantee you it will only be the self-respecting guys and girls who say that immodesty is wrong, especially when its done deliberately to attract attention.

  10. Shame seems a bit of an odd choice.

    Nah, I’m with Thomas (#3). It really is about shame. In a lot of people’s worldview, the female body is inherently shameful, and this is one thing that keeps the Patriarchatron running smoothly. “Modesty” is just the reward nice girls get for not doing “shameful” things.

    seeing a pre-teen girl in a shirt that asks me to “get some” is just unnerving.

    As the father of a pre-teen girl, I agree. But not because I think she should be “modest” (let alone “shamed”). Pre-teens wearing sexually expressive clothing (especially clothing that positions them as an object, rather than subject, of desire) is reprehensible because a) it reeks of pedophillia, and b) left to their own devices, they wouldn’t do it. The problem is that coporations are conspiring with the Patriarchatron to teach pre-teens that they are sexualized objects for the visual/physical pleasure and consumption of men. The girls are trained to be sex objects before they’ve really developed their own sexuality.

  11. You’re right Jill. Girls are ugly. They suck. They should go away and hide, because walking outside naked or with tight clothes is a definite way to bring respect to yourself.

    Um… what?

    But go on.Shout: Wear sexy clothing or better yet: wear nothing! Be free!
    …

    When will you ever grow up? I guarantee you it will only be the self-respecting guys and girls who say that immodesty is wrong, especially when its done deliberately to attract attention.

    I didn’t say that wearing tight clothes or walking naked is a way to bring respect to yourself. I didn’t say that dressing modestly is disrespectful. In fact, I didn’t prescribe anything — I just said that it’s stupid to argue that dressing (or not dressing) in a particular way is “shameful.” If women want to dress modestly, go for it. And if they want to walk around in short skirts, go for it. My problem is with one group of people shaming another for the way they present themselves. For the record, I also have a problem with a cultural mode which focuses on women only as consumers, and uses fashion as a further way to exploit us. I have a problem with the emphasis on pre-pubescent bodies as the ideal in the fashion industry, and with the sexualizing of young girls for straight men. I have a big problem with all of that. I just don’t think it helps anything to brand women who dress a certain way as “sluts.”

    By the way, this is the same argument made by people who think that women’s bodies should be completely covered — because “woman” is synonymous with “sex,” and any exposure of the female body is therefore immoral.

  12. I guarantee you it will only be the self-respecting guys and girls who say that immodesty is wrong, especially when its done deliberately to attract attention.

    You could say the same thing about modesty, especially when it’s done deliberately to attract attention.

  13. Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts. They have sex with them, they pay them, but they don’t respect them. The ones (girls) who think wearing tight clothes is attractive are not respected at all, since they don’t even have the guts to respect themselves. They might look sexy, but that’s all there is there.

    Why do I get the feeling that when you say “men,” you actually mean “me”?

    If you think that women are better off covered up, that’s your business. I think most men look better in pastels. We all have our preferences. The difference, of course, is that my preferences aren’t based on an idea of the male body as inherently dirty.

    “Dressing like a slut” is also pretty subjective. I’ll bet there are a lot of people out there who think that women in short-sleeved t-shirts and jeans are dressing like sluts. Your argument that men think a particular way is ridiculous, and I have a feeling that a lot of reasonable, respectful men will be pretty insulted by it.

  14. I think most men look better in pastels.

    So it’s your fault all the frat boys are walking around my campus in light blue and pink polo shirts? Thanks for nothing. 😉

    Echoing Jill’s question: What, exactly, is a slut?

    Another question: What about all those guys walking around in either tank-tops or shirtless? Are they dressing like sluts as well? Or is it just females that have to worry about “respecting themselves”?

  15. “As the father of a pre-teen girl, I agree. But not because I think she should be “modest” (let alone “shamed”). Pre-teens wearing sexually expressive clothing (especially clothing that positions them as an object, rather than subject, of desire) is reprehensible because a) it reeks of pedophillia, and b) left to their own devices, they wouldn’t do it.”

    I’m with you on (a) but not so sure about (b). Maybe I’m being naive but I can’t imagine that many parents are going out buying clothes that scream “do me” for their 12 year old kids without the kids lobbying for it.

    “The problem is that coporations are conspiring with the Patriarchatron to teach pre-teens that they are sexualized objects for the visual/physical pleasure and consumption of men.”

    I think you ay be reading too much sinister motive into this. Rather than an at of will I think it’s much more an unintended consequence of the culture.

  16. This reminds me of when I used to be an animator, working for a small hand-drawn type place in Boston. We had done the Dairy Fairy commercial (the little fairy cow with wings who makes cheese) on a previous occasion, but the second time we got the job, we were told that we had to eliminate her teats. The udder could stay, but the nipples themselves were too. . . well, I’ve never quite figured out quite what, but they were bad, bad, bad. Even though the entire point of the character is that she makes the milk that makes the cheese they were selling.

    Fucking idiots.

  17. OK. I’m seriously confused. Malachi says:

    You’re right Jill. Girls are ugly. They suck. They should go away and hide, because walking outside naked or with tight clothes is a definite way to bring respect to yourself.

    Who is the assumed speaker here? I’m guessing that “you’re right” is a sarcastic agreement with the rest of it, which is meant to be a paraphrasing of Jill’s viewpoint. I can understand the logic of accusing Jill of thinking that tight clothes will bring respect (Jill says tight clothes are not shameful, therefore Jill says tight clothes bring respect).*

    But where does “Girls are ugly. They suck. They should go away and hide” come from? Is that still supposed to be Jill speaking? It sounds more Malachi paraphrasing Jill paraphrasing the “Got Shame” folks, suggesting that behind their mantra of “modesty” there lies an ugly hatred of women’s and girls’ bodies. Is Jill supposed to be allied somehow with the “Got Shame” people?

    Did anyone else get that?

    *I said I could understand the logic, not that it’s anywhere close to accurate.

  18. I look okay in pastels, but I look absofuckingfabulous in sorbets. Orange and lime and strawberry in particular.

    Looking at the picture, it looks like the poor cow is desperate to find a potty before it has an accident.

    Other than that, what Jill said.

  19. Malachi (ghastly comment #9) might like to check out a further item on the same “Modesty” site. This is an inspirational mouse pad featuring “Modest Bessy” – the same udder-flashing cow now in what can only be described as a blush-sparing bovine burka: a long sleeved flowered frock covering her teats!

    As others have indicated, this is nothing to do with sense and youthful sexuality. The message is perverse and humilating.

  20. Wow. Malachi sounds way too invested in this issue.

    I think evoking shame is weird, too. Why not say something like “Got dignity?” or “Got self-respect?” to promote women dressing — not necesssarily “modestly” but at least appropriately.

    “Modesty” has its own charged meaning. It implies a certain self-effacement, a sense of not wanting to put oneself forward. Is modest a word that one typically applies to men as a virtue, or more typically women?

    I’d certain judge a successful woman in a well-fitting business suit to be dressed apprpropriately, ie., not sluttily, but I don’t think “modest” would be the first word that would come to mind.

    that poor embarrassed cow.

  21. I think evoking shame is weird, too. Why not say something like “Got dignity?” or “Got self-respect?” to promote women dressing — not necesssarily “modestly” but at least appropriately.

    Yes! Thank you. That’s what was in the back of my mind but wouldn’t come into focus. “Shame” is inherently negative. It’s an attack on “sluts” rather than either praising “modest” girls or encouraging “sluts” to show a little self respect. It’s the old love the sinner/hate the sin bullshit, which way too often means “hate the sinner/fantasize about the sin.”

    “Modesty” has its own charged meaning. It implies a certain self-effacement, a sense of not wanting to put oneself forward. Is modest a word that one typically applies to men as a virtue, or more typically women?

    Women. All the time. As randomliberal/Robert pointed out, guys in tank tops aren’t accused of “immodesty.” “Modesty” usually means denying certain parts of your personhood–your desire to speak, your right to disagree, your sexuality, your ambition. All those things that are celebrated in men and discouraged in women.

  22. But go on.Shout: Wear sexy clothing or better yet: wear nothing! Be free!

    Damn straight. Sorry ladies, it’s burkhas or nothing, I”m afraid.

  23. Actually “got dignity” and “got self-respect” sound like a pretty good idea for turning girls away from the ditzy, sexualized image the media’s pushing.

    But, on looking over the site, I don’t think those virtues are dainty enough for Modesty Zone. Why, if a girl, say, has too much dignity to be grossed out by The Vagina Monologues or anatomical diagrams, or has too much self-respect to slink away without speaking her mind because people will disagree with her, someone, somewhere, might get offended.

  24. Checked out the site, thought I’d poke out of lurkerdom to point out the slogan at the top of the main page – “for good girls in hiding, everywhere.”

    Says it all. Ick.

  25. A Pang, I don’t know what Modesty Zone was grossed out by, but it certainly wasn’t The Vagina Monologues. The Vagina Monologues wasn’t mentioned at all on that page, though I did see a reference to a curiously named The V-Monologues or “V-logues” for short. I have never heard of that particular production, but it’s clearly an evil piece of librul “art.” Feminists were putting it on. :-O

    Wait…you don’t suppose The V-Monologues is an abbreviation for…? Nah, they wouldn’t be that scared of a word, would they? Surely not…

  26. I disagree with equating “dignity” and “self-respect” with any particular way of dressing. The implication, then, is that anyone who doesn’t dress according to a particular standard of modesty lacks those virtues. That isn’t true.

    I think we need to move on entirely from assigning that kind of value to the way women dress. It’s ridiculous to assume that the woman wearing the veil is oppressed and submissive; it’s ridiculous to assume that the woman wearing the mini skirt is a slut who lacks self-respect.

    They’re clothes. Today I was covered from neck to feet in a turtle neck, jeans, boots and gloves. Saturday night I wore a dress that was cut so low I couldn’t wear a bra. The day before that I was all buttoned up in a “modest” black dress. I didn’t have any more dignity today than I did then. Clothes can be an expression, and I personally like fashion for its expressive and artistic value, but they don’t necessary indicate that the person wearing them is always a particular way.

    Using judging, value-loaded words to describe women’s personal characterists based entirely on their clothing choices is silly, reductive and sexist.

  27. I looked at the shirts, and not to rain on your parade but I think
    they’re funny. Especially “be daring, keep your shirt on. ”

    I think you are taking this WAY too seriously.

  28. Using judging, value-loaded words to describe women’s personal characterists based entirely on their clothing choices is silly, reductive and sexist.

    Men’s personal characteristics are judged by clothes, too. Nothing “sexist” about it, unless you’re using “sexist” to mean anything that sometimes inconveniences a woman.

    The social coding done by clothes is far too useful for a rejectionist approach to work. You WILL be judged by your clothes. In the feminist utopia where men complain about having to do 65% of the housework, leg hair is considered a mark of sexual dynamicism, and abortion rights are written into the Constitution, you will be judged by your clothes.

    Where you might have some success is in reconfiguring which personal characteristics are signaled through clothing choice. I think that reaching conclusions about a woman’s moral virtue on the basis of her clothing is a stretch. But I doubt seriously that sexual signaling through clothes is going to change; it’s too useful for women’s mating patterns. So there will always be some sexual signaling coming through, no matter how feminist the world becomes.

  29. They’re clothes. Today I was covered from neck to feet in a turtle neck, jeans, boots and gloves. Saturday night I wore a dress that was cut so low I couldn’t wear a bra. The day before that I was all buttoned up in a “modest” black dress. I didn’t have any more dignity today than I did then.

    Exactly. I’m always amazed at the notion that less clothing=sexier or even debased somehow. 90% of the time when I’m showing a lot of skin, it’s not especially sexy. It’s because I’m wearing shorts and a tank top to do work outside in the summer. When I want to look sexy, I’ll wear a lot more than that.

  30. Pingback: Why buy the cow when you can get the clip art for free? at Pandagon

  31. Echoing Jill’s question: What, exactly, is a slut?

    Someone who gets more sex than the speaker. Next question?

  32. Echoing Jill’s question: What, exactly, is a slut?

    Someone who gets more sex than the speaker. Next question?

    Ah. Then every last one of you is a slut.

  33. I disagree with equating “dignity” and “self-respect” with any particular way of dressing. The implication, then, is that anyone who doesn’t dress according to a particular standard of modesty lacks those virtues. That isn’t true.

    I think we need to move on entirely from assigning that kind of value to the way women dress.

    Just to clarify, I for one am not disagreeing with you. It’s not what a person wears, but why. Someone with dignity and self-respect is able to dress a particular way because they like it, they’re comfortable with it, it’s self-expression, etc. – not because someone’s pressured or shamed them into thinking it’s the one and only moral / attractive / cool way to dress.

    Now back to horrible horrible paper.

  34. Yup, I was right: if you click on the product “descriptions” they are tongue-in-cheeck:

    “Girls Gone Mild Coasters: Protect your tables–and your guests’ emotions–by sending the subtle message that you expect everyone to keep their shirts on.”

    “Shameful Mug: Is a creepy co-worker doing that that annoying-lingering-arm stroke thing? We’ve all been there. Nip inappropriate touch in the bud with the most frightening, un-P.C. expression around: “Got Shame?” When you are sipping from this cup, people with “issues” will stay far away from you. Guaranteed.”

    I’m not saying I’m going to buy the mug, but as a woman who has experienced the creepy-lingering arm stroke thing, it did make me laugh.

    Can I ask a serious question, I was just talking to my friend about this the other day. When did modesty become a non-feminist-“rightwing” issue? Because I consider myself a feminist and a liberal and to me modesty is just about self-respect.

    Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?

  35. It’s just another example of girls being told they are fully responsible for not being treated as a sex object.

    Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts. They have sex with them, they pay them, but they don’t respect them.

    And this is who’s fault exactly? Sure, men can go on screwing women, using them and then talking shit about them because they’re “slutty” or even if they just dress like sluts, so the solution is for women to go out of their way to dress modestly so they will be considered one of the good girls. Never challenge what the men are saying or doing.

    And “Girls Gone Mild”? It sounds like someone who’s been given medication because they’re too rowdy and need to behave. That’s rebellious, for sure.

  36. Hey, thanks for the head’s up on the website. I’ll have to go check it out.

    In my view, modesty has nothing to do with shame of my body, and everything to do with my self-respect. Voices across the liberal/conservative spectrum defend modesty, so this is hardly a battle of neo-libs vs. neo-cons, though it seems as if you are presenting it as such. I don’t believe anyone who says that they do not judge a person by their appearance — everyone does it, just admit it.

    If women wish to be seen as having value beyond their sexual appeal, and I think this is the position of those of us who are feminists, no?? then it makes sense to stop dressing like a sexual object. Dress in ways that call attention to your mind and your speech and your personality, not your body. Is such a call for sensible modesty to be equated with the burkah? That is absurd. Frankly, I prefer a man to be dressed modestly as well. I prefer that he not have holes in his jeans that reveal his pubic hair, that he not show his butt crack, and that he not go around shirtless.

    There is a vast difference between that which is shameful, and that which is private. It is a useful distinction, one that has gotten so lost in our society.

    Lastly, for the father who is opposed to sexualized clothing for his pre-teen to claim that it has nothing to do with his desiring her to be modest . . . what???? Has “modest” become a loaded, bad word? Something that requires you to twist your argument into preposterous contortions in order to avoid using it? Are you serious when you say that your biggest objection is that corporations are making money off this line of clothing? Oh, dear.

  37. But I doubt seriously that sexual signaling through clothes is going to change; it’s too useful for women’s mating patterns.

    Women’s mating patterns? How, exactly, does a woman mate without a man being involved?

  38. The Modesty Zone seems to have conflated modesty with the sort of Victorian-era squeamishness that precluded asking for one’s chicken by its anatomical name (leg, breast, thigh). One wonders if they’ve yet realized that the “Girls Gone Mild” shirt, as with nearly all message-bearing t-shirts, leads the gaze to what, based on their aversion to the proper names of body parts, one must assume they refer to as the “B-region”.

  39. I’m confused. I thought “whores” do it for money but “sluts” do it for free. Kind of shoots down Malachi’s argument that “men will pay” sluts for sex. Get your terms straight, Malachi, or you’ll never be taken seriously.

    Also, if you people keep saying “vagina” on this website I’m never coming back.

  40. Women’s mating patterns? How, exactly, does a woman mate without a man being involved?

    I think you’ve missed Robert’s point, unless you were under the impression that women choose mates entirely at random.

  41. “Modesty” has its own charged meaning. It implies a certain self-effacement, a sense of not wanting to put oneself forward. Is modest a word that one typically applies to men as a virtue, or more typically women?

    I’d certain judge a successful woman in a well-fitting business suit to be dressed apprpropriately, ie., not sluttily, but I don’t think “modest” would be the first word that would come to mind.

    Well, there’s modesty, and then there’s MODESTY!!! Someone who dresses in, say, simple T-shirts and jeans, or longer skirts and light blouses because they’re not comfortable — for whatever reason — showing a lot of skin is dressing modestly, but not calling attention to that fact. Which, of course, is what modesty is all about.

    Then you have people like this, who dress MODESTLY!!!! Because, for them, the whole point is to dress in a manner that calls attention to their gawdliness and holiness and the control exerted by the patriarch over the family.

    In short, that ain’t modest. And all of Wendy Shalit’s little t-shirts and cutesy mugs and mousepads do is call attention to the sexuality of the wearer and then say, in neon lights, “You can’t have this.”

    I see people every day who dress modestly but aren’t calling attention to themselves. And I only notice this because I’m looking for it. I’d notice someone in a sack dress with a giant collar or someone wearing a t-shirt with a cow doing the pee-pee dance on it without even trying.

    I’m always fascinated by the Hasidim, a lot of whom live around my neighborhood and ride my subway. You can spot the men a mile away, but the women often blend in, at least until you notice that they’re all wearing the same wig. That’s such a reversal of the usual dynamic in religious wear.

  42. Isn’t anybody here going to mention the cow is wearing a moo-moo in the 2nd pic?

    Remember Graucho’s famous line?
    “I wouldn’t belong to any club that’d have me.”

    Man: Sleep with me.
    Woman: Okay.
    Man: Slut.

  43. How, exactly, does a woman mate without a man being involved?

    Turkey baster, petri dish, electrophoretically fused pair of oocytes…

  44. Anyone who spends their time bragging about how “modest” they are isn’t really modest, no matter what they’re wearing.

  45. Personally, I’ve always thought that a well-placed sharp elbow in the gut is better at deterring those “inappropriate touch-ers” than sipping my coffee from a mug with a slogan on it.

    Is this the conservative approach to dealing with sexual harassment? Letting your coffee cup talk for you?

  46. Malachi: Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts.

    Hey, as I live in Lutz, FL; I even respect women who run around entirely naked! The weather’s fine; come on down and check our delightful nudist camps out, dude. And stop blushing, big M, I assure you that, contrary to your expectation, when you take you clothes off in Lake Como or Paradise Lakes, you really won’t be embarrassed by any irregulationary erection, even should a pretty woman happen to stroll across your line of sight.

  47. g,

    I think it’s more about telling women that if they’re sexual harrassed it’s their fault for not dressing modestly enough. And yeah, I don’t understand how they think a coffee mug with a blushing cow on it is likely to prevent it in any way.

  48. Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts. They have sex with them, they pay them, but they don’t respect them. The ones (girls) who think wearing tight clothes is attractive are not respected at all, since they don’t even have the guts to respect themselves. They might look sexy, but that’s all there is there.

    What, all men are such jerks as to use a woman’s wardrobe as an excuse to treat her less than human? Empowerment is (among other things) being able to wear whatever one pleases and still be taken seriously.

    And what the hell? “The ones wearing tight clothes don’t even have the guts to respect themselves”?! A) I wear tight clothes when I feel like it and I do respect myself, thank you very much, and B) I think the ones who embrace/endorse modesty as a means to respect from others lack the self-respect to realize that they’re entitled to respect no matter what they’re wearing.

    I really wish this culture wasn’t so pervasive about equating female bodies with sex, to the exclusion of everything else. I want to be able to walk around topless when it’s ninety degrees out, and have it understood by all and sundry that I do so because it’s hot out, not because I’m feeling exhibitionistic. It’s my body; what I feel is a hell of a lot more important than what other people see.

  49. Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the cow in question appears to have been cut off at the fetlocks and somewhere just above the hocks? Seriously, the poor thing doesn’t have hooves, even cutsey cartooney ones — she has stumps. It creeps me out.

    In other news:
    Well said, Kyra. *applause, applause* There is such a thing as *fitted* clothing these days (as opposed to the 1980s, for instance), and that does tend to reveal one’s shape. And that is not a bad thing, especially for larger, curvier women (“semi-fitted” is the kiss of death for us round chicks). I think that Malachi person was just a random troll trying to stir up rage, etc. It worked.

  50. If women wish to be seen as having value beyond their sexual appeal, and I think this is the position of those of us who are feminists, no?? then it makes sense to stop dressing like a sexual object.

    No, it doesn’t. Not only is that a continuation of the patriarchal demand that women rewrite their lives around avoiding the problems men cause them, but it also suggests that value beyond sex appeal requires that sex appeal be given up in order to have any other value.

    Objectification is not achieved in how one dresses, but by how one is perceived by others. It is better to attack this at its source, by demanding to be taken seriously even when you happen to be dressed “immodestly.” Attack the people who reduce you to your sex appeal, not the sex appeal itself. Attack the idea that if someone has lots of skin showing, that makes it acceptable to dismiss all other aspects of them.

    I don’t show skin to be seen as sexy. I show skin to feel comfortable, and beautiful, and confident. I should not have to trade any of this for other people to see me as a person, and if someone decides to judge me by my covering, that is their problem, not mine.

    Certainly I’m not going to cover myself up for the approval of Wendy Shalit and her ilk, any more than I’m going to pose naked on the cover of Vanity Fair for the approval of Tom Ford and his ilk. If I do either, or anything in between, it will be for my comfort, my self-expression, my opinion of how I should look. And everyone else can direct their eyes where they please, and fuck off.

  51. Oh, fuck off, Wendy “Whiner” Shalit. You can cover yourself with a burlap bag as far as I’m concerned, but keep your bluish nose out of my life and wardrobe.

  52. it makes sense to stop dressing like a sexual object.

    No. It makes sense to call the patriarchy out for constructing you as a sexual “object.” Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women. It is not the woman’s fault when she is objectified any more than it is when she gets sexually harrassed.

    [That is] a continuation of the patriarchal demand that women rewrite their lives around avoiding the problems men cause them

    Hell, yes. If a guy yells “Hey baaaybee! Wanna Fuck!?” at a woman on a sidewalk, it is not her fault for “dressing immodestly.” It is his fault for “acting like a flaming asshole.”

    Lastly, for the father [eds. note–that’s me] who is opposed to sexualized clothing for his pre-teen to claim that it has nothing to do with his desiring her to be modest . . . what???? Has “modest” become a loaded, bad word?

    Unfortunately, to a certain extent, yes. Words are always freighted with the meaning they currently have in cultural discourse. Were “modest” currently being used to mean not bragging, not self-aggrandizing, and generally avoiding hubris, I’d have no problem saying that I desire my daughter to be “modest.” Unfortunately, that word, as it has been taken up by the “Girls Gone Mild” crowd, apparently means repressing your sexuality and hiding your (female) body as if there were something wrong with being a (female) sexual human being. [Where the hell are there “got shame” mousepads for boys?] If they use “modesty” as just one more tool to control women’s bodies in the service of patriarchy, then no, I don’t want my daughter to be “modest.”

    Are you serious when you say that your biggest objection is that corporations are making money off this line of clothing?

    I didn’t say that. I said:

    The problem is that coporations are conspiring with the Patriarchatron to teach pre-teens that they are sexualized objects for the visual/physical pleasure and consumption of men. The girls are trained to be sex objects before they’ve really developed their own sexuality.

    …and that was the follow up to my statement that “left to their own devices, they wouldn’t do it.” by “The problem” I meant not “that which bothers me,” but “that which explains why this is happening.”

    Maybe I’m being naive but I can’t imagine that many parents are going out buying clothes that scream “do me” for their 12 year old kids without the kids lobbying for it.

    No–I agree with you. But the kids lobby for what they see advertised. Kids swimming in popular culture absorb what the corporations have to sell. And Seventeen magazine, Victoria’s Secret, whatever, all make money by selling certain portrayals of womens/girls sexuality to pre-teen girls. Again, the girls are being sold patriarchal ideas of what sexuality is before they’ve really developed their own ideas of what sexuality is.

    I think if the corporate-sponsored images were all about empowerment and authentic sexuality and believing that you are sexually alive whether or not boys see you as a sexbot, kids would be free to develop much healthier ideas about sexuality.

    I think you ay be reading too much sinister motive into this. Rather than an at of will I think it’s much more an unintended consequence of the culture.

    Do the people who market these images to girls sit up at night, rubbing their hands and muttering, “How can I steal girls’ authority over their own sexuality, Withers?…I know! I’ll tell them that they only have sexual value if they can get boys to leer at them!”

    No. But do they place the profit motive ahead of any concern for girls developing a healthy and self-empowering sexuality? Yes. The people who get paid to market stuff get paid really goddamn well for their ability to get inside the heads of kids and make them do shit they wouldn’t do if left to their own devices. Like putting candy next to the checkout line so that when the parents are trapped in line, their kid will whine for candy and they’ll fork over the dough just to get their kid to shut up. Hell, there’s a famous article that quotes a marketer bragging that she’s catalouged 7 different kinds of whine, and that provoking each one can make parents buy their kids different goods in different situations.

    So I don’t think it’s an unintended consequence of the culture–any more than Camel marketing cigs to pre-teens is.

    Anyway, Hugo has a great post on this topic, especially the question of male responsibility for objectifying women/girls.

  53. >Hell, yes. If a guy yells “Hey baaaybee! Wanna Fuck!?” at a woman on a sidewalk, it is not her fault for “dressing immodestly.” It is his fault for “acting like a flaming asshole.”

    Now, THAT, I’d wear on a T-shirt.

  54. It makes sense to call the patriarchy out for constructing you as a sexual “object.”

    But you are a “sexual object” – among many other things. We all are – from sexual maturation until death, pretty much. A few people choose to take themselves out of that great game (and society usually provides some signaling mechanism so that others can determine who’s not in play), but by and large, we are sexual objects.

    The problem arises when we are treated ONLY as sexual objects – when the facet is read as the entire gem. And that has nothing to do with any ‘archies – it has to do with whether we as individuals choose to treat other human beings as human beings.

    Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women.

    What crap.

  55. It makes sense to call the patriarchy out for constructing you as a sexual “object.”

    But you are a “sexual object” – among many other things. We all are – from sexual maturation until death, pretty much.

    Robert–I didn’t say sexual “being,” I said “sexual object.” As in “object” as opposed to “subject.” A woman who is participating in “that great game” is ideally the subject of her own sexuality, not the object of someone else’s. If I treat you as a sexual subject, then I am treating you as a sexual human being with desires, dignity, hang-ups, etc. In other words, like a person. If I treat you like a sexual object, then I’m treating you as a thing–a passive recipient for my sexual subjectivity.

    Just like in grammer–the subject actively “does” the sexuality, and the object passively has the sexuality done to it. Under those terms, (which are what most people mean when they refer to a sexual object as opposed to sexual subject) wouldn’t you agree that it’s healthier to be a subject–and to treat others as such–than an object?

    Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women.

    What crap.

    If we assume the definitions that I’m using above, and considering Playboy, Girls Gone Wild, etc., do you still find that statement to be, as you put it, “crap?” If so, could you tell us why?

  56. As in “object” as opposed to “subject.

    As in, the laws of grammar are not the laws of biology. So your argument is wind.

Comments are currently closed.