RE: YOUR Chance to Support Equal Rights in Moscow

[Debbie Gray <dgray@uidaho.edu>]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Melynda Huskey wrote:

> Didn't the Council introduce a newly-worded version of the ordinance and
> then refuse to take any public testimony on it before voting?  And wasn't
> the group in attendance that night primarily composed of people opposed to
> the ordinance (unlike the previous meeting, which featured a well-organized
> group of pro-ordinance folks who were allowed to testify at length about how
> many children each of them had and how those children would be affected by
> the sight of breasts)?

I don't know, I was under the impression that the meeting where they were
taking the final vote was one where they were through taking citizen
input. And I could very well be wrong. However, there was time for plenty
of input from either side whether it was in person, via letters, calls,
emails, etc. It's not like 'they' met secretly and came up with this
ordinance on their own with no input from either 'side' of the issue and
then voted it into law to serve their very own interests and ignored those
of their constituents. Excuse my run-on sentence.

>
> Debbie Grey continues:
>
> >to me, I've not heard so much self-victimization by women in a long time.
> >I think it's easier for people to jump on the victim wagon then approach
> >this logically and realistically. All this noise about how this is
> >basically men keeping all women down and making them feel nasty is pure
> >emotional blackmail. But I guess you need some rallying cry.
>
> How sad that you see women organizing against a discriminatory law as
> "self-victimization."  My definition of self-victimization would include
> directing sexist remarks at other women, accusing them of "emotional
> blackmail" and lacking the ability to think "logically and realistically"
> because they disagree with you.

First, I am not directing my 'sexist' remarks at other women, I am
directing my remarks (which I don't see as sexist but if you do, so be it)
at those who are manipulating the emotional side of this story and
emphasizing HOW this ordinance MAKES the women the victim. I am not
calling them victims, I completely avoid using the term victim whenever I
talk about any crime because it doesn't help the person who was the target
of a crime feel anything more than a powerless victim. I would rather give
power to those hurt by criminals rather than take it away. And how can
this ordinance MAKE the women feel less than equal. It doesn't make me
feel that way, it doesn't make every woman I've discussed this with feel
that way. Are we in need of our consciousness being raised? I think not.
Your ideas of equality are different from mine, that doesn't make them any
better or worse. I don't want to have the 'right' to go topless and I
don't care to have toplessness all around. Why do people want it? Because
they can't have it? That's not a good enough reason. Why do you define
equality as men and women should both be topless or both be not? I don't
know, but you do. Why don't I? I have a different feeling about what
equality means but it looks at more serious, restricting issues than this.

Do you not think that the MER is playing this 'victim' card at all? Let's
see from recent postings:

-On Aug 5 2002, MER wrote: If you want to see this as a "titty" fest, that
-is your right.  I see this as an opportunity for woman to empower
-themselves, reclaim their rights as humans and show us that woman are
-more than sex objects to be regulated by government.

'reclaim their rights as humans'?? Meaning they are now treated as
sub-human? On the basis that they cannot show their breasts in public?





>
> Of course your first loyalty is with law enforcement, given Phil's job, and
> it must be frustrating to have family members and friends blamed and
> criticized for something that is really the fault of the City Council.  B

My first loyalty is with my own belief system and critical thinking. That
has nothing to do with Phil's job. However, I do get tired of hearing the
police blamed for everything and I am also disappointed by the statements
here about the police being too incompetent to do their job. Since Phil
works for the county, he is not involved in enforcing this city ordinance
(and I am sure he is very grateful for that). He
doesn't agree with the law because it's too vague and he also sees both
sides of it. He thinks there should be some law, but better written,
because current social norms are against women being topless in public.
However, he says that it is men who have sexualized the breast and
therefore perhaps society's norms should be changed. But perhaps that
doesn't fit into your ideas of law enforcement. And if breasts aren't
sexual, why has he told me so many stories of nice young women he has
pulled over that have unzipped and/or unbuttoned their tops in the hopes
that will get them out of a ticket. And then the tops get zipped/buttoned
back up after he tells them he will return in a moment to give them their
tickets. Hmmm. And he has yet to have a man unzip anything to get out of a
ticket. Hmmm.

I know women are 'victimized' (though I hate that word) every day by
discrimination, harrassment, and worse in other countries. Equating this
ordinance with any of those is an INSULT to the women in the conditions
they are FORCED to live under wherein they cannot vote, walk in public
without showing their faces, are stoned to death for having extra-marital
sexual relations, raped in response to the crime that their brothers have
committed, and have no way of having a voice in changing these laws. That
is a truly reprehensible and serious thing.  To me, the people who are
wanting to equate this ordinance with those things are people who want to
be seen as part of a downtrodden group, victimized, etc. Obviously, you
don't have to agree with this.

> But dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a crybaby or a moron is
> counterproductive.  Where is the logic or the realism in allowing male fire
> fighters to strip down for a carwash after drafting a law to prevent women
> from doing the same thing?

Where did I dismiss anyone as a crybaby or moron? I must have missed that.
I don't dismiss anyone who disagrees with me, I object to the tactics
people are using to emotionalize the topic.

The logic of the male firefighters being allowed to strip down following
this law is simply that there is not a law forbidding it. Whether you
agree or disagree with that is one thing, but if a firefighter were cited
for being topless it would most certainly be dismissed since the law does
NOT apply to men AT THIS TIME. Perhaps that will be changed, perhaps not.
I see men and women as being completely equal, but in my logic it doesn't
follow that therefore women should be able to be topless. And if people
are in favor of female breasts being on public display because they are
'natural and a source of nutrition for children', etc, then where do you
draw the line between that and 18 inches lower? What is sexual to some is
not to others, of course. But overall, at this time, society is more in
favor of differentiating the body parts of men and women. And I don't even
understand why women would want to be topless, but that's a side thought.

I think it's wonderful that we have a process that allows all this
discussion and the ability to overthrow a law. However, if the votes
aren't there and the law isn't overturned what will happen? What result
will be the one that the public is willing to accept?

Debbie Gray


%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
  Debbie Gray      dgray@uidaho.edu      http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgray/
  We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to
  have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%