vision2020
Re: Argonaut editorial
I agree that people should be concerned about fiscal issues, as well as
freedom issues. I also feel that people should be DOUBLY concerned when the
issue affects fiscal AND freedom!
I hope the money issue is a red herring. I certainly don't want our city
wasting money defending the law. But considering women are being warned
about wearing certain apparel (affecting their freedom) and women are being
angered by this, I don't think it is a stretch to assume someone will
challenge this law in court. I don't think this law is worth defending.
I'll be honest about that.
Since I've answered your question and given you clarity regarding my
position, perhaps you will answer my questions from the last email and give
me clarity regarding your position:
"Since bare breasts seem to be offensive because of sexual concerns, knowing
that men can be turned on by other bare parts of a womens body, should we
require women to keep their skin covered? Should we restrict women from
showing their curves, lips and hair? Afterall, even her laugh can make men
feel sexual. Perhaps we should prevent women from dancing, too. "
Why are breasts your concern, and not other parts of a women's body that may
cause the same reaction you are concerned about?
I think we have a fundamental difference regarding the way women should be
treated. I'm not saying you disrespect women or treat women bad, just that
we have a diffent notion on what that respect should entail. I just don't
understand why women have to have your restriction on showing even a portion
of their breast. What did they do to deserve that restriction? What is the
reasoning behind that?
This is a concern because of regimes such as the Talban that appears to have
taken your logic about the breasts and placed it upon the whole women. I
want to know why you think this is not related.
>From: WMSteed@aol.com
>To: idahomer@hotmail.com, WMSteed@aol.com, thansen@moscow.com,
>dougwils@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:30:14 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 9/17/02 2:39:35 PM, idahomer@hotmail.com writes:
>
><< In answer to Walter Steed regarding applying this law to men: No. I
>choose
>not to limit other's freedoms in order to conform to your prudish views on
>women. >>
>
>Not a prudish view, but you have confirmed my belief that the "equal
>rights"
>position on this issue is not valid. It has to do with either not wanting
>restrictions on female clothing or a desire to go bare breasted. As you
>said, <<It is plain to see why this law was crafted the way it was: To
>steer
>the
>dress code of Moscow. Some people are offended by current trends in
>fasion,
>and now we have a law to restrict said fasion.
>I don't think it is the governments duty to dictate our dress code. There
>are plenty of community's that have a dress code. Go join one if you can't
>handle the current fasion in Moscow.>> I've just wanted your position to
>be
>an honest one.
>
>Regarding the <<It is a money issue when
>someone decides to challenge the law and our city decides to defend it in
>court, wasting our tax dollars on a silly law that will more than likely be
>overturned.>> I think this is a red herring as well; but, to take your
>statement at face value, when no one questions or discusses city budget
>increases and hardly asks about across-the-board utility rate increases,
>it's
>good to see someone in the community care about what is costing to live
>here.
>
>Walter Steed
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Back to TOC