It's not bad to be good

The problem I have with Shalit is that in her own way she's no different than people who want women in burqas. She sees men's actions as women's responsibility. Why is it anyone's business how sexy or not sexy a woman dresses...unless she's up for a job interview? It's a matter of taste, and that's all it should be.

What bothers me is that this kind of thinking is what leads people to think, when a woman is assaulted, that it was her fault if she dressed "too sexy" (and how do you define it anyway?). If men are pigs to a woman who's dressed a certain way, then men need to stop being pigs. That's where we should be putting our effort. And honestly, men who are pigs will harass you no matter what you wear. Sexism is the problem, not lack of modesty.

Reply

I know this is going to shock a lot of people, but I agree with Ms. Shalit. I firmly believe that there is an inverse relationship between provocative dress and behavior, and a girl's self-confidence. I firmly believe we should encourage our girls to adopt styles that are attractive without being provocative. Our girls' youths should be focused on growing into intelligent, healthy, confident young women who look forward to the good things in life (which a string of one-night-stands is not). This can't happen if they are continuously distracted by the need to prove their sexuality.

Every teenage girl is capable of sexuality - whether they cover up or not. So why do they feel they have to prove it through various tasteless advertising campaigns? How can that possibly benefit womankind?

Don't people notice that girls who dress and act like mini-prostitutes and mini-Britneys have much less happy lives, during their teens and beyond, than those who adopt a more modest lifestyle?

I am so grateful that someone is standing up for what's really best for our girls.

Reply

I don't think Shalit is trying to blame women for the actions of men. I personally DON'T believe that women who dress provocatively are "asking for it," but I do believe that women who dress modestly ARE asking to be respected.

This is why modestly is so empowering, because it is a statement about the way we feel about our bodies, it shows that we respect ourselves and expect others to as well.

When one dresses immodestly, it reinforces the flawed values of society that say a woman's sexuality is her most important characteristic and so it should be displayed.

A woman can be beautiful, strong, smart, creative, powerful and kind, but if she dresses provocatively, she send the message that all those things are second to her sexuality.

Reply

and I second what SKL said

Reply

Sorry, emjaybee, sometimes it *is* a woman's responsibility. Haven't you heard the phrase, "You are what you eat"? It's much the same with dress - the way you dress projects to those around you how you should be treated. Yes, it's combined with your attitude, but think about it - if you walk into a room and there are two men in there, one in a suit, with short neat hair, all clean and spiffy, and another dressed in holey, greasy clothes with long, scraggly hair, who are you more likely to treat with respect? Knee-jerk reaction? Yes. Human? Yes. So why should we teach our girls that they can dress like a two-dollar hooker and cuss like a sailor, and yet still expect to be treated like a princess?

Reply

"If you walk into a room and there are two men in there, one in a suit, with short neat hair, all clean and spiffy, and another dressed in holey, greasy clothes with long, scraggly hair, who are you more likely to treat with respect?"

Well, first of all, if the scruffy guy displayed smarts and behaved courteously, I would hope one would not be limited enough to hold his appearance against him. And second, I certainly wouldn't think his scruffy appearance would give one license to assault or mistreat him, which I think was emjaybee's point.

Reply

*sigh*
My attitudes concerning skimpy clothing (and recreational nudity, for that matter) don't jive with the mainstream. I don't see any inherent connection between one's self-respect and how much skin you choose to bear.

And LS? No, it isn't the woman's responsibility in the slightest. A hundred beautiful men could saunter past me completely naked and you can bet I won't be grabbing a single one of them, nor make a single lewd remark. I have control over my base impulses.

Reply

I don't think the original point was about whether sexual assault by men on any woman is ever justified. Of course it isn't. Totally aside from the risk of violent crime, a girl or woman who dresses and acts immodestly is disrespecting herself. She is harming herself by advertising to the world that she is first and foremost a sex object. The fact that she gets to decide who gets to touch her doesn't change the fact that she's objectifying and cheapening herself.

Reply

But here's the thing: how do you define "dressing and acting immodestly." I imagine the standards would differ wildly for different people with different politics/values, no?

Reply

In answer to the question about dressing immodestly: I agree there's no clear definition that works in all circumstances throughout time. However, there's a range of appropriateness in each time and place that anyone can recognize. Showing off any part of your butt or underwear, having to shave your privates because your waistline is so low, selecting clothes with the intent of drawing attention to one's cleavage, showing off so much leg that a light breeze or slight bend will provide an x-rated peep show - it's pretty obvious that those choices are intended to bring sex-oriented attention on oneself. And that is self-degrading, in my opinion.

Reply

"If you walk into a room and there are two men in there, one in a suit, with short neat hair, all clean and spiffy, and another dressed in holey, greasy clothes with long, scraggly hair, who are you more likely to treat with respect?"

To be honest, the latter. Maybe it comes from my experience as working as a union organizer and negotiator, but I don't trust people in suits. Always seem like "boss types."

I don't know about the larger argument, but I don't trust Wendy Shalit. She was on NPR making some pretty outrageous claims with no backup.

See the link
http://www.fair.org/index.php?age=22&media_view_id=9027

or

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/07/wendy-shalit-doesnt-need-no-stinking.html

Feminists say you can't be liberated if you don't run around naked in public.
Liberals want to crush all human emotion.
The American Library Association promotes bestiality on its website.
Teachers expose kindergarteners to explicit sex....
Professors tell their female students that they have to appear in Girls Gone Wild videos if they truly want to participate in making history.

Reply