Interesting article. Opinions?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20040224.shtml

In Part One, I offered two reasons for the increasing exposure of young women's bodies. One was the loss of female roles and identity, leading many young women to announce they are females in the only way left to them -- by showing their body. The other was the near-extinction of the concept of femininity, including the demise of feminine dress.

The ending of sex-based roles, probably the major goal of feminism, has brought some blessings, but it has also harmed countless lives. Roles, to use the most venerated word in feminism, empower both sexes.

As much as feminists may disdain the roles of mother or wife, those roles have bestowed power as well as meaning and satisfaction on the vast majority of women in history. When all is said and done, heading a home and being married to a good man are far more satisfying to most women than college teaching or corporate work. The ending of women's roles has left innumerable women more free to choose their life's course, but often less happy and, yes, less powerful. Roles empower (as well as constrain) people.

Women derive power from feminine roles, and men derive power from masculine roles. At the core of feminism is an envy of male roles and power and a belief that women should have the same. But, as a recent New York Times Magazine cover story noted, women graduates from Ivy League universities are increasingly leaving the corporate world to raise families. Having the same power as men did not fulfill these women.

Now, the third reason. With no feminine role to aspire to, many young women feel powerless. The one area of power left for them is sexual. The more a young woman has bought into feminist notions of equality (i.e., the sexes are essentially the same and there is no such thing as a woman's role), the more she is likely to flaunt her sexual power. It is the only power left to her. This helps explain why female students at Harvard -- among the highest achieving young women in the country -- have just launched a magazine featuring Harvard women posing nude.

A fourth reason may be surprising -- sexual harassment laws.

Women feel freer than ever to dress provocatively in part because men can say nothing about it. Omnipresent sexual harassment laws and "consciousness raising" seminars in businesses and schools have frightened men into not making any sexual comments to a woman.

As a result, the normal check on a woman flaunting her body is gone. A woman can reveal her breasts or cross her short-skirted legs near a man, but he is forbidden to say so much as, "You have great legs." In fact, he can be fired or sued for saying nothing and merely "staring."

One reason women dressed more modestly in the past was fear of men's verbal reactions. No more. There are vast checks on his sexuality, none on hers.

We should either drop all sexual harassment laws (except those prohibiting threats -- "Sleep with me or you're fired") or apply them equally to women. If men create a sexually charged work environment when they talk sex, women do the same when they show sex. "Hostile work environment" -- a trial lawyer enrichment program created by feminist anger at men -- should be either dropped as a legal concept or applied equally to women's dress.

A fifth reason is the most obvious -- a desire to attract men.

Every woman knows that the quickest way to attract a man is to have him notice her. So it makes sense to assume that the more of her body she shows, the more men will be attracted to her. The problem with this approach is that unless all she wants is sex that night, provocative outfits are not usually in her best interest. Why not?

This leads to the sixth and final reason: women's naivete. It is doubtful that women have ever been as naive about men as are large numbers of contemporary educated women. I believe that my grandmother who never went to school understood men better than the average female college graduate today.

So, as a service to any woman who is confused by the difference between "cute" and provocative as regards women's clothing, this may help. What you often call cute or attractive, men see only as a sexual come-on. If you wish to dress for sex, you should be entirely free to do so. But if you want love and attention, you have to know the difference between dressing for sex and dressing to be cute and attractive. The more skin men see, the more they think sex, not love. And that includes guys your age, your male teachers, your clergyman, your mailman, and the old man next door.

__________________
"Outside of the battlefield, your enemy can be your friend"...Kojiiro.

Evil unchecked grows. Evil Tolerated, poisens the entire system.

The Townhall is not a magazine where I would put ANY credibility into what the author has to say, but I'll make comments anyway. The goal of feminism is not to end sex based roles. In fact thats a loaded statement. It implies that there are roles for each sex to play. This being from a Super rightwing fundamentalist magazine, I assume the author is pissed that women aren't barefoot and pregnant, cooking dinner and not speaking her mind. I assume those are the roles he is referring to. I also like how the author says that "When all is said and done, heading a home and being married to a good man are far more satisfying to most women than college teaching or corporate work.". How would this guy know thats satisfying? Ugh, I'm going to stop. Theres too much silliness to comment on. I do read townhall on occassion. I actually have all the hardcore Rightwing sites bookmarked. Townhall, NewsMax, Fox News, etc... I don't enjoy reading them, it's usually just for a good laugh. My last comment is this. Maybe the reason that women are not the docile house maidens they were in times of old is mainly they're able to get an education and aren't forced to get married ASAP by their parents at age 18, and secondly because things change. Things always change, Peoples attitudes, their ideas, etc... Change is a constant in life. It's foolish and impossible to try and prevent change. In the 19oo's, if women wore a bathing suit that didn't cover their entire body they'd be thrown in jail. Thats why I think its pretty funny that people admonish the middle east chicks for wearing the hankies around their faces. yet people here flip out when someone exposes their breast on TV. The only reason breast are sexual, is because women keep them covered up. and we're not used to seeing them. Perfect example. One saturday afternoon, go with a couple of friends to a strip club at 12 pm. Stay there for 12 hours, by the end of the night, seeing another pair of breasts isn't going to make you crazy. I'm sure the strip clubs in Afghanistan have women running around without their hankees and pasties on their noses. Anyway, I"ve got whiskey to drink and people to annoy. Peace.

__________________
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell

I am finding it hard to comment on this in a civilized way. Women have to stop dressing in a way that men (who apparently by this article) have no self control will stop coming onto them? So it's women's faults that men are pigs? Women are supposed to be the beacons of virtue and enforcers of morality? Didn't this ideology die after the 1950's? Apparently not to the right-wing. I find it amusing that he links feminists to women exposing themselves. I am a feminist, and I'm not really going to be flashing people today. (Of course, I will at the office, where it's completely appropriate and sanctioned, as he says, because no men can stare or I'll scream sexual harassment.)

Please. This man better hope he never meets up with me in a dark alley.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

I think the issue lies in the emergence of hyper-sensitivty by some women. Let me repeat that....some women. This led to sexual harrassment laws that were too loosely defined and left men hanging out to dry. Thus some women who were overly sensitive charged sexual harrassment if a man looked at them.

What is and is not acceptable for men and women is something that is a combination of common sense, the relationship that they have and the environment that they work in. When a women dresses in an outfit that is revealing, she should not get mad if a man notices. If the man gawks or is lwd and rude. Then there is an issue, but when women dress provacatively, they should not be surpirsed is a man notices. Sure you can dress for yourself, but if you are in public, you have to expect people to see you.

__________________
Sponge
----------
Soaking up intelligent commentary.

I think this is some sort of myth men who feel slighted by more powerful women in the workplace have dreamt up, frankly.

Not to say that some sexual harrassment claims aren't false in nature. But the statement is rises to a "problem"?

I can safely tell you that as a half-way decent woman, you at some point in your life WILL be sexually harrassed at work--something completely inappropriate that makes you question how much men really have changed. I have a friend who recently was shipped to a foreign city to do work for a company here and her new boss took her out to lunch and shoved his hand down her shirt and tried to suggest they go to a hotel. She called her homebase manager, and she never received her compensation for her expenses, never got paid for that time, etc., and all she wanted was that. She didn't want to make a big deal. They instead tried to make her feel like (this married man who was denying everything) it was her fault. I did some work for a plaintiff's attorney last year who knew I was out of work and needed money. He offered me a flat fee under the table to help him out with a trial. I spent 3 11 hour days working for him when he asked me out on a date, after I had already deferred about 3 suggestions we go out to lunch, catch dinner after work, etc. in a casual way. He never showed up to meet me the next day and then said he wasn't going to pay me. He shot a "CYA" email off to me saying "since you refused to work for me, I was forced to hire someone else." During an interview even at a firm, I was once told that I wasn't going to be hired because the male attorneys wouldn't be able to concentrate on their jobs. Keep in mind I interview in a black suit with a knee-length skirt and a non-revealing blouse underneath.

Women are not some naive creatures who wander outside their houses like kittens to be saved in brazilian bikinis and somehow end up as your secretary and then are shocked when you steal a peak, as this author would like to have you believe. The problem is NOT women who dress provocatively (although that's a totally relative term--I know men who could be turned on by women in a paper bag)--the issue is men taking responsibility for their actions, and some men still being in the stone ages. This perpetuates the stereotype that men are these, as I said before, crazed sexual beings that are tempted by Eve's apple...and cannot control themselves and should not be responsible for it. Women are supposed to be the Madonnas and uphold virtue and morality. So if women go and wear something that could be, god forbid, considered sexy to someone, men have no accountability if they stare with drool out the side of their mouth.

I'm not stupid here--I've seen women wear some ridiculous things to work where I was unable to stare away from their chests or stop commenting on, "Gee, could that skirt have been any shorter?" and I've also made complaints to management that women dressed inappropriately. Do I get upset if I wear a tight shirt to work and a man looks at my chest? No, I find it amusing and I could care less. If he stared at it when he talked to me, pretty much anyone would say that's inappropriate. If I had to work with the guy, I'd have to say something to him in order to continue working there. Just because a guy wears form fitting jeans doesn't mean I'm forced to stare at his ass all day long, and if I did, I expect to get talked to.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach