vision2020
RE: Public Nudity - Our Community
Daniel Kronemann wrote:
"The other issue that I think is more hidden (although we have
definately discussed it so its not like its a deep secret) is the sexism
issue. I really don't think anyone has a problem with requiring certain
amounts of clothing before presenting one's self in public. What
bothers a lot of people such as Dr. Huskey, myself, Ms Opyr, and others
is that this requirement of clothing is targeted, as it reads in the
ordinance, only at women. If you are going to have a law requiring
clothes, have it, but you must apply it to every citizen under the
jurisdiction of that law equally. Men should not be allowed to go
shirtless. That is the problem. Not requiring clothes but that its
directed only at one sex."
I do agree with these statements, and it's this inherent sexist
targeting that I find so offensive.
While I firmly believe that we need to shift the public focus *away*
from the continued sexual objectification of females in general &
breasts specifically, and *towards* the true intended purpose of breasts
(nourishment of our young), I can understand that some people, having
been indoctrinated for their entire lives, are very resistant to this
goal and that a "top optional" society may be too much too soon.
However, what I cannot stomach and find morally repugnant is the
legalized sexism our City Council is responsible for perpetuating with
the passage of the "nudity" ordinance and its emphasis on female breasts
while completely ignoring male chests.
Contrary to what some folks have posted, I don't recall that anyone
against the ordinance has written there are no differences between
pubescent/post pubescent male and female chests. Of COURSE there are
differences, but why should those differences mandate that female chests
be covered and male chests not be covered?
The prime justification seems to be that female breasts have a "sexual"
connotation that male chests don't have. I disagree with that
justification, and I think, at least in this country, such an assumption
is rooted in the fact that women have not had adequate or equal
representation in our legislative and judicial systems.
The fact is that both male and female chests visibly change as a result
of puberty; in both genders, these changes are part of the development
of secondary sexual characteristics.
In females, due to hormonal influences, there is an increase in fatty
tissue that results in a physical change in contour of the chest. This
is the development of breasts, which are a secondary sexual
characteristic.
But males, too, experience changes pertaining to the chest: due to
hormonal influences, there will be varying amounts of chest hair. In
addition, there are physical changes in the chest contour in males as
well; most identifiable is the increased muscle mass as a result of
hormonal influences. The hair growth and the changes in contour in
males are also secondary characteristics.
Given those facts, *why* is it women have been targeted??? Why do men
not think that a woman will have a similar reaction to seeing a
subjectively defined attractive male chest as a male will have seeing a
subjectively defined attractive female chest . . . and all the other
possible combinations? And, why do people in general not recognize that
there are members of our North American society who are as offended at
the sight of a bare male chest as those offended at the sight of a bare
female chest?
I think this must have something to do with the fact that women weren't
represented in the legislative and judicial processes when these unequal
and repressive laws first made it onto the books or else the obvious
would have been pointed out: since both male and female chests have
secondary sexual characteristics, then the people those chests belong to
must be treated equally under the law.
For those who aren't aware, our judicial system has a very vested
interest in ruling based on precedent, which is one of the reasons so
many unjust laws have stayed on the books throughout this country for so
long. I see this double standard regarding the clothing required for
females but not for males as just one more example, and I am hopeful
that this, too, shall change.
If only women had been allowed, had been adequately represented, back
then . . . :-)
The recent action of our City Council is extremely disappointing to me.
For whatever reason(s), Moscow was a community that, when faced with
having its previous statute legally negated, *didn't* have a knee-jerk
reaction. It *didn't* continue the hypocritical double-standard of
putting the teeth of the law behind something that perpetuated the
unjust unequal treatment of females and males. It was a small thing,
and lord knows there's lots of progress yet to be made for true equal
treatment by men and women under the law to be realized, but it was
*something*.
And, that may not have been the intention at the time, but is *was* a
benefit for all members of the community.
It was something that, as a woman *and* as a citizen of Moscow, filled
me with pride.
And, now I'm just incredibly sad.
My community government has gone backward. Because of tradition or
morals or weakness or fear or whatever, they have slipped back into
denying women equal rights and equal protection under the law.
If I take my shirt off, I can go to jail and have a criminal record.
If my husband takes off his shirt, he can go to the pool.
Doesn't seem very fair to me, even if it is tradition :-(
Saundra Lund
Moscow, Idaho
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Back to TOC