Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate challenge!

["Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>]

Gregory,
Please excuse me for implying you are a member of the Taliban.  That was not 
my intention.  I'm sure you despise them as much as me.

I mention the Taliban because of my understanding regarding the way women 
were treated.  You and I can speculate about the reasons.
I feel it is because women have historically been regarded as less then men. 
  Even in our country, women have not achieved the equality of men.  Women 
are seen as a commodity to be regulated, and the Taliban took that to its 
extreme.

I imagine that the religious reasons were to prevent men from being 
corrupted by the sight of women, which, apparently, is the reason some agree 
with the law to prevent women from going topfree.  Women are not just 
restricted downtown, but all the way onto their private property if it is in 
public view.  That is extreme and does not seem justifiable.

I'm not attempting to dispose of you.  I'm glad that you honor women and 
hope you will continue to do so.  I'm just trying to draw parallels between 
the thoughts, especially considering there seems to be a religious 
similarity between why women must cover their breasts.  Which makes me 
wonder where is it in the Bible that it says a women must cover her breasts? 
  It would be interesting to the the biblical beliefs regarding this.

If you don't support the ordinance, perhaps you will sign our petition.  
Let's come up with a better solution so that the Taliban argument no longer 
is an issue.

Lastly, no one is calling for women to "flaunt their breasts" as you imply.  
As far as I can tell, all the men and women working on this campaign have no 
intention of walking topfree in public.  Our concerns were stated in the 
previous email.

I can't make you understand or even believe that I am not crass, but again, 
I will ask for someone to debate the necessity of this ordinance.

Garrett Clevenger


>From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
>To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,   
><vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate 
>challenge!
>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:49 -0700
>
>You keep invoking the Taliban when you want some really nasty way to 
>dispose
>of those who disagree with you. How you put me in that category after I
>called for a rich celebration of the truly feminine is beyond me. The
>Taliban oppresses women because it does not understand truth, beauty,
>goodness, male or female. Because they do not understand, they cover women
>from head to toe. Because you don't understand, you flaunt their bare
>breasts. The only difference I can see between the two is the amount of
>cloth.
>
>To clarify my position on The Ordinance, I don't support it. It is a sad
>commentary on our culture that we need policemen with guns enforcing dress
>codes. But it was not brought about because people are squeamish about
>breasts. It was brought about because some people are inconsiderate slobs.
>As long as some people think it is acceptable to wear skateboard pants to a
>wedding, we will have prudes who throw them out. As long as some people
>think the female birthday suit is acceptable attire for window shopping, we
>will have nudity ordinances.
>
>If you want to debate or discuss what truly matters here, how rich
>masculinity and feminity interact with each other in all their glorious
>difference, I am all for it. But if all you want to do is parade your 
>tired,
>crass notion that women are only equal to men if they can be just as 
>boorish
>as any frat boy, then no thanks.
>
>Still licensed to practice law and think out loud,
>
>Gregory C. Dickison
>Lawyer & Counselor at Law
>Post Office Box 8846
>312 South Main Street
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
>(208) 882-4009
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
>To: <gdickison@moscow.com>; <johnguy@moscow.com>; <peg_hamlett@msn.com>;
><jmack@turbonet.com>; <steveb@moscow.com>; <comstock@moscow.com>;
><jmhill@moscow.com>; <mtethoma@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
>challenge!
>
>
> > Gregory et al,
> > Have you read the ordinance 2002-13?
> > The fact is this ordinance does more than restrict women from walking
> > downtown topfree.  It sweeps onto private property.  Women who enjoy
> > sunbathing, gardening or whatever on their property now must cover their
> > breasts if they are in public view.  Even if they are in their home, if
> > someone can see in from a public space, they face a $500 or 6 months in
>jail
> > if their breasts are exposed.
> > On top of that, certain bikinis and other apparel are now banned from
>public
> > view.  As well as the infamous "plumber's butt."  If you bend over and
> > expose the cleft of your buttocks, you are now breaking the law.
> >
> > Perhaps Attorney Dickison does not think this law is extreme because he 
>is
> > exposed to extreme laws during his work, but for me and many others, 
>this
> > law represents another attempt to regulate women in order to prevent the
> > corruption of men.  This is no different than the Taliban's motive for
> > forcing women to cover themselves completely.  Most men, perhaps even
> > Gregory, would admit that men can be turned on by legaly exposed parts 
>of
>a
> > woman.  Why not cover those parts as well?
> >
> > I would assume that Attorny Dickison knows about the nudity ordinance
>Moscow
> > had that was thrown out by the courts a few years ago.  I would assume 
>he
> > knows about the ordinance in Boise that was thrown out because it banned
> > mainstream apparel.  I would assume he knows that New York state found 
>all
> > their topfree laws to be unconstitutional.
> >
> > Perhaps Gregory doesn't think this law will be challenged in court.  The
> > fact is, there are so many holes in it that our city will end up 
>spending
> > our money trying to defend it, when in the process we could have drafted
> > something more acceptable and saved our money.
> >
> > Our campaign is in the best interest for Moscow.  We want laws that 
>don't
> > test the constitution.  We want laws that are thoughtful.  We want to 
>use
> > our tax dollars for something more useful.
> >
> > We do not feel this law is necessary.  We feel the city council could 
>have
> > addressed the issue more thoughtfully.  Thus our attempt to hold the 
>city
> > council accountable for passing this law.
> >
> > As far as I know, there has not been a real public debate about this
>issue.
> > We feel that if our city is going to pass laws that test the 14th
>amendment,
> > we should at least debate about it.
> >
> > Gregory's response still did not indicate why this ordinance is 
>necessary.
> > This points to the fact that no one can come up with a good reason.  If
>so,
> > let us hear it.  Let us debate this.  This is what community is: being
>able
> > to discuss controversial issues openly.
> >
> > Perhaps people are bored with us.  That is your right.  There are people
> > still concerned, however, and we would like to get all the facts out in
>the
> > open.  Our challenge to debate is in the spirit of being honest about 
>the
> > issue.
> >
> > If someone doesn't except our challenge, we can only assume that is
>because
> > no one has a good response to our arguments.  If someone does, don't be
> > chicken, come down to the park and debate this with us.  It'll be fun:)
> >
> > We have no intent of oppressing Gregory Dickison with our "narrow and
> > confining vision of equality."  Just as long as he gives a good reason 
>why
> > he feels this narrow and confining ordinance as written is necessary for
> > Moscow.
> >
> > At the very least, let's put this to a public vote so that the people of
> > Moscow can decide if they want to restrict themselves with this law.
> >
> > Garrett Clevenger
> >
> > >From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
> > >To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,
> > ><vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
> > >challenge!
> > >Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:58:13 -0700
> > >
> > >Chicken? Maybe just bored. Your shallow and utilitarian notions of
>equality
> > >are getting tiresome. Saying that men and women are equal in the manner
>you
> > >do is like saying that the saprano and the tenor parts are equal. Of
> > >course,
> > >there is always some fool who sees two different things and wants to 
>say
> > >that one is better. But to respond by asserting that they are just the
>same
> > >is to answer the fool according to his folly and consequently be just
>like
> > >him.
> > >
> > >In the real world, men and women are free to be men and women, 
>masculine
> > >and
> > >feminine, interacting with each other in the harmonic and mutually
> > >enriching
> > >way that God intended. Men and women are different, radically so. A 
>real,
> > >rich culture recognizes, celebrates and protects the differences and 
>the
> > >interaction. Saying that women should be able to do everything men do
> > >completely misses the point, and squishes both men and women into an
> > >amorphous mold that gives freedom, equality and justice to neither.
> > >
> > >Please, stop trying to oppress us with your narrow and confining vision
>of
> > >equality. We prefer the freedom of true sexual diversity.
> > >
> > >Gregory C. Dickison
> > >Lawyer & Counselor at Law
> > >Post Office Box 8846
> > >312 South Main Street
> > >Moscow, Idaho 83843
> > >(208) 882-4009
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >






I mention the Taliban because of my understanding regarding the way women 
were treated.  You and I can speculate about the reasons.
I feel it is because women have historically been regarded as less then men. 
  Even in our country, women have not acheieved the equality of men.  Women 
are seen as a commondity to be regulated, and the Taliban took that to its 
extreme.
I imagine hat the religious reasons were to prevent men from being corrupted 
by the sight of women, which, apparantly, is the reason you agree with the 
law to prevent women from going topfree.  We are not just restricting this 
downtown, but all the way to private property if it is in public view.  That 
is extreme and does not seem justifiable.
I'm not attempting to dispose of you.  I'm glad that you honor women and 
hope you will continue to do so.  I'm just trying to draw parralels between 
the thoughts, especially considering that there seems to be a religious 
similarity


>From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
>To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,   
><vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate 
>challenge!
>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:49 -0700
>
>You keep invoking the Taliban when you want some really nasty way to 
>dispose
>of those who disagree with you. How you put me in that category after I
>called for a rich celebration of the truly feminine is beyond me. The
>Taliban oppresses women because it does not understand truth, beauty,
>goodness, male or female. Because they do not understand, they cover women
>from head to toe. Because you don't understand, you flaunt their bare
>breasts. The only difference I can see between the two is the amount of
>cloth.
>
>To clarify my position on The Ordinance, I don't support it. It is a sad
>commentary on our culture that we need policemen with guns enforcing dress
>codes. But it was not brought about because people are squeamish about
>breasts. It was brought about because some people are inconsiderate slobs.
>As long as some people think it is acceptable to wear skateboard pants to a
>wedding, we will have prudes who throw them out. As long as some people
>think the female birthday suit is acceptable attire for window shopping, we
>will have nudity ordinances.
>
>If you want to debate or discuss what truly matters here, how rich
>masculinity and feminity interact with each other in all their glorious
>difference, I am all for it. But if all you want to do is parade your 
>tired,
>crass notion that women are only equal to men if they can be just as 
>boorish
>as any frat boy, then no thanks.
>
>Still licensed to practice law and think out loud,
>
>Gregory C. Dickison
>Lawyer & Counselor at Law
>Post Office Box 8846
>312 South Main Street
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
>(208) 882-4009
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
>To: <gdickison@moscow.com>; <johnguy@moscow.com>; <peg_hamlett@msn.com>;
><jmack@turbonet.com>; <steveb@moscow.com>; <comstock@moscow.com>;
><jmhill@moscow.com>; <mtethoma@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
>challenge!
>
>
> > Gregory et al,
> > Have you read the ordinance 2002-13?
> > The fact is this ordinance does more than restrict women from walking
> > downtown topfree.  It sweeps onto private property.  Women who enjoy
> > sunbathing, gardening or whatever on their property now must cover their
> > breasts if they are in public view.  Even if they are in their home, if
> > someone can see in from a public space, they face a $500 or 6 months in
>jail
> > if their breasts are exposed.
> > On top of that, certain bikinis and other apparel are now banned from
>public
> > view.  As well as the infamous "plumber's butt."  If you bend over and
> > expose the cleft of your buttocks, you are now breaking the law.
> >
> > Perhaps Attorney Dickison does not think this law is extreme because he 
>is
> > exposed to extreme laws during his work, but for me and many others, 
>this
> > law represents another attempt to regulate women in order to prevent the
> > corruption of men.  This is no different than the Taliban's motive for
> > forcing women to cover themselves completely.  Most men, perhaps even
> > Gregory, would admit that men can be turned on by legaly exposed parts 
>of
>a
> > woman.  Why not cover those parts as well?
> >
> > I would assume that Attorny Dickison knows about the nudity ordinance
>Moscow
> > had that was thrown out by the courts a few years ago.  I would assume 
>he
> > knows about the ordinance in Boise that was thrown out because it banned
> > mainstream apparel.  I would assume he knows that New York state found 
>all
> > their topfree laws to be unconstitutional.
> >
> > Perhaps Gregory doesn't think this law will be challenged in court.  The
> > fact is, there are so many holes in it that our city will end up 
>spending
> > our money trying to defend it, when in the process we could have drafted
> > something more acceptable and saved our money.
> >
> > Our campaign is in the best interest for Moscow.  We want laws that 
>don't
> > test the constitution.  We want laws that are thoughtful.  We want to 
>use
> > our tax dollars for something more useful.
> >
> > We do not feel this law is necessary.  We feel the city council could 
>have
> > addressed the issue more thoughtfully.  Thus our attempt to hold the 
>city
> > council accountable for passing this law.
> >
> > As far as I know, there has not been a real public debate about this
>issue.
> > We feel that if our city is going to pass laws that test the 14th
>amendment,
> > we should at least debate about it.
> >
> > Gregory's response still did not indicate why this ordinance is 
>necessary.
> > This points to the fact that no one can come up with a good reason.  If
>so,
> > let us hear it.  Let us debate this.  This is what community is: being
>able
> > to discuss controversial issues openly.
> >
> > Perhaps people are bored with us.  That is your right.  There are people
> > still concerned, however, and we would like to get all the facts out in
>the
> > open.  Our challenge to debate is in the spirit of being honest about 
>the
> > issue.
> >
> > If someone doesn't except our challenge, we can only assume that is
>because
> > no one has a good response to our arguments.  If someone does, don't be
> > chicken, come down to the park and debate this with us.  It'll be fun:)
> >
> > We have no intent of oppressing Gregory Dickison with our "narrow and
> > confining vision of equality."  Just as long as he gives a good reason 
>why
> > he feels this narrow and confining ordinance as written is necessary for
> > Moscow.
> >
> > At the very least, let's put this to a public vote so that the people of
> > Moscow can decide if they want to restrict themselves with this law.
> >
> > Garrett Clevenger
> >
> > >From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
> > >To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,
> > ><vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
> > >challenge!
> > >Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:58:13 -0700
> > >
> > >Chicken? Maybe just bored. Your shallow and utilitarian notions of
>equality
> > >are getting tiresome. Saying that men and women are equal in the manner
>you
> > >do is like saying that the saprano and the tenor parts are equal. Of
> > >course,
> > >there is always some fool who sees two different things and wants to 
>say
> > >that one is better. But to respond by asserting that they are just the
>same
> > >is to answer the fool according to his folly and consequently be just
>like
> > >him.
> > >
> > >In the real world, men and women are free to be men and women, 
>masculine
> > >and
> > >feminine, interacting with each other in the harmonic and mutually
> > >enriching
> > >way that God intended. Men and women are different, radically so. A 
>real,
> > >rich culture recognizes, celebrates and protects the differences and 
>the
> > >interaction. Saying that women should be able to do everything men do
> > >completely misses the point, and squishes both men and women into an
> > >amorphous mold that gives freedom, equality and justice to neither.
> > >
> > >Please, stop trying to oppress us with your narrow and confining vision
>of
> > >equality. We prefer the freedom of true sexual diversity.
> > >
> > >Gregory C. Dickison
> > >Lawyer & Counselor at Law
> > >Post Office Box 8846
> > >312 South Main Street
> > >Moscow, Idaho 83843
> > >(208) 882-4009
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com