Monday, April 5, 2010

A Plea For Civil Rights

Marching for right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras
About two dozen women took a walk down Congress Street topless Saturday, attracting a large crowd as they tried to preach that partial female nudity is not worthy of attracting a crowd.

The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on, said Ty MacDowell, 20, of Westbrook, who organized Saturday's event and promoted it on Facebook.
It's hard to disagree with that. This is the 2010's, you know, and 'gender equality' should not be throw away line. Sexism and Racism are two sides of the same coin, are they not?
No more racism or sexism. We are all the same. If we believe it as a society, we need to practice it. Enforce it, if need be.
But as the event got under way in Longfellow Square, the marchers were soon outnumbered by scores of onlookers -- mostly young men eagerly snapping away with cameras and cell phones.

MacDowell said she was surprised by the turnout of those interested less in challenging societal convention than in seeing partially undressed women.
Pigs.
Every damned one of them.
Disgusting sexist, perverted, male chauvinistic pigs.
It's a shame that after decades of gender norming curriculum in our schools that we are still raising a generation of young men who ogle the breasts of women.

This has got to stop.
MacDowell said she understood that for women, going topless in public "is not socially acceptable yet, and obviously there's going to be a reaction to something that breaks the norm"...

...MacDowell said many of the marchers encouraged her to continue her efforts to promote public toplessness, but she said she will try to avoid a repeat of what occurred Saturday.
The problem is that after the kids leave school, they enter their homes, where six-hours of gender norming education are quickly undone by the sexist, misogynistic attitudes of their fathers.

It is for this reason that changes to breast attitudes need to addressed on a more widespread level. I think this Ty Whatsername chick should take her movement national: Bare breasted marches in every city and town.

Men need to be taught the self discipline of not ogling, and the best way to learn unogling is to practice not ogling.

Of course, this also means that anything unogled must be first ogleable.
With this in mind, I propose that before any women can take part in these important, educational and necessary marches a pre-approval be attained to certify that her breasts meet appropriatly acceptable standards of ogleness. (A standard likely missing from the most recent educational attempt, if the images are any clue. We can do better. And we will, because women deserve better.)

Lets' move America forward to a more just society. It's important.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

You sure this wasnt guerrilla advertising for cosmetic surgery?

Would make more sense or be more effective (perhaps) to have a march with mothers breast feeding
their babies....if the point
was to de-sexually-objectify titties.

IMO of course
Chills

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

*snicker*

I'll stay as an unenlightened lady, myself....

my name is Amanda said...

Okay, I'll bite. *rolls up sleeves*

The points of this post are that (1) women are stupid, (2) only women with attractive breasts are allowed to have opinions, but (3) having attractive breasts still doesn't guarantee you respect (as in say, people typing your name correctly or referring to you as a woman rather than a "chick"). Further, (4) the sarcasm effectually proves that sexism and misogyny don't exist, once and for all.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Thought it was pretty clear....
"Hey, marching topless to show how women are no different than men gets a big crowd that pretty effectively shows yes, they are. I will now be funny, and possibly suggest why so many men support various womens groups who pull this kind of thing."

Forget getting free milk without a cow-- this is the cows fighting to be the one to provide free milk....

Brian said...

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't seem to get that "freedom of expression" does not entail "freedom from reaction".

Gino said...

hey, i'm serious.
i love women, and their breasts.

and if i can help a gender equity cause... then just count me in.

my name is Amanda said...

Foxfier, I understand Gino's joke. The premise of the joke relies on the ideas that I enumerated, however. I wasn't "offended" by the post or anything. I can think that *Gino* is funny, while fully believing in the statement I made earlier.

(Although the point of the demo was not to say women are no different than men, but to help de-sexualize breasts, which would lead to the ability for women to walk bare-breasted in public, the same as men walk bare-breasted in public.)

(Personally I think the behavior ought to be reserved for the beach, and I simply don't think it would be physically comfortable to walk around without a bra on, but whatever.)

Brian, the reporter purposely chose to accentuate that particular woman's opinion, in order to make the march look ridiculous. Another woman is quoted in the article stating that she was not surprised.

In fact, if I would have been there, *I* would have been watching and taking photos, and I am not a lesbian. It's news, and it's interesting.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

No, not really... the joke relies on this premise: some women are willing to show me their boobs because they think it will promote their cause; I want to see a lot of pretty boobies.

If we want to ignore that it's a joke, then the point of the post is:
Hm, current education isn't working, because of insufficient exposure. We should also make sure that this increase in exposure is highly prone to what we're trying to counter.

There was no mention of the brain-power of women;
no restriction on having an opinion, only that those "training" people not to ogle should be certified as high-level ogle material. Kind of like how there's no rule you can't be a politician without being a good speaker, but one really should choose a good speaker for your political cause;
I'll go out on a limb and say that our host has great respect for a lovely bosom;
sarcasm? Really? Seems clearly jocose, facetious or waggish to me. Maybe satire, though that would be as hard to prove as sarcasm. Anyways, it doesn't say anything to sexism or hatred of women; it does point out the silly reasoning, though.

K-Rod said...

Amanda said, and I quote her, "women are stupid".

I disagree with Amanda.

my name is Amanda said...

Foxfier, here is a more thorough explanation -

Some women are willing to show me their boobs because they think it will promote their cause but I justwant to see a lot of pretty boobies, ergo, they are stupid for thinking I wouldn't just love looking at naked boobs.

So that demonstates #1.

For #2: "I propose that before any women can take part in these important, educational and necessary marches a pre-approval be attained to certify that her breasts meet appropriatly acceptable standards of ogleness..."

A woman who is taking part in a march is a woman who has been certified as ogleable - therefore, she has been allowed to express her opinion. A march is what people do to make a statement, or, express an opinion.

For #3 - People who are respected aren't generally referred to as "Ty Whatsername chick." The word chick is used to reduce the importance of the noun it is describing: chick lit, chick flick. To apply it to a woman is to reduce her to an object of physical attraction (while to be regarded as beautiful is not evil in and of itself, to be treated as an object certainly is). Though, since "chick" is so common, and term itself is beyong being derogatory, if a writer or speaker intends to belittle a woman, they call them "some chick," "this chick," "whatshername chick." (Which isn't to say I personally hate the word "chick." I don't.)

As for #4, Gino is the one who brought up the sexism and misogyny. I merely pointed out that being sarcastic doesn't negate the existence of sexism. Sarcasm is the appropriate term for instances when he mentioned sexism, chauvinist pig, etc specifically, though one could describe the post as a whole, as facetious. But yes, basically he's saying "Oooh, they're such sexist pigs!" because he means exactly the opposite - irony being cornerstone of sarcasm. He does not actually think men are sexist for staring at naked boobs. He says that men love boobs, and therefore it's natural and not woman-hating to ogle at them.

***

As for my opinion, women don't have to be attractive to get men to stare at their boobs. Men seem to be facinated by them all. Also, women certainly don't have to be topless to get men to look at their boobs, either, though that seems to help quite a bit. I don't think I prefer a world in which breasts aren't sexualized, because - well, sex is fun. Breasts are fun. (Mostly. Not always.) But I know that I do prefer a world in which what is sexualized isn't instantly equated to what is evil. I prefer a world in which people who have breasts aren't instantly regarded as objects for viewing. I don't know whether its possible to continue to regard breasts as sexual while decreasing the scandalous nature of bare breasts in public. There are plenty of non-scandalous things about men's bodies that I find sexual, so maybe. All in all, as far as what these women are trying to accomplish - it's not like they would do it once, and everything would be fixed. If women started doing this all the time, they might just make it more normal to see bare breasts in public, like they want. So while I don't share their vision, I don't see their reasoning as silly at all.

my name is Amanda said...

K-Rod, you quoted a summary I gave. So if you disagree with that statement, it doesn't indicate whether you disagree with me personally, because my opinion wasn't present in the summary.

tully said...

I wasn't ogling. I was valorizing femininity in rebellion against efforts (in service of a male, phallocentric hierarchy) to silence the essential maternal potency of breasts. And the camera was for a friend, who was doing sort of the same thing.

K-Rod said...

Amanda said, and I quote her, "only women with attractive breasts are allowed to have opinions".

For the record, I disagree with Amanda.

K-Rod said...

"K-Rod, you quoted a summary I gave."

Yes, it was YOURS and only YOURS; and I disagree! (at least until someone else agrees with what YOU said!) But I'll STILL disagree!

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Some women are willing to show me their boobs because they think it will promote their cause but I justwant to see a lot of pretty boobies, ergo, they are stupid for thinking I wouldn't just love looking at naked boobs.

Nope, you're projecting motivation and limitations.

Example:
The boy scouts are selling pancakes. I like pancakes, and I like the boy scouts, thus I will buy pancakes.

therefore, she has been allowed to express her opinion

You're changing your claim.

To apply it to a woman is to reduce her to an object of physical attraction

Might want to take it up with the ladies who self describe their films and books as "chick lit" and "chick flicks," let alone the many all-female groups who call themselves "The ___ Chicks."

(Which isn't to say I personally hate the word "chick." I don't.)

So...you're cool with "reducing" a woman to "an object" of any form? That's a...creative view.

irony being cornerstone of sarcasm

The intent to be "cutting" is the cornerstone of sarcasm. It can be ironic or satirical, but ill must be meant by it.

Not that you seem to have the least problem reading the intents of others, be the intent there or no.

my name is Amanda said...

Oh Lordy.

Okay. I am not projecting, I am comprehending the meaning. Reading comprehension. Projecting would be if I pulled an unrelated result out of the air, and applied it. When in fact, Gino is laughing at women who are foolish enough to think men wouldn't want to come stare at that breasts. He said it. It's not a projection. I imagine the motivation is amusement, and the limitation is the defined meaning, which couldn't be a projection.

I did not change any claim from the first comment. I said that certain women would be allowed to express their opinion, and in the third comment, I described in depth what I meant by that. In depth for a blog comment, anyway.

Sure, one of the objects of sarcasm might be to be cutting, but that doesn't conflict with my explanation regarding that.

As far as reading intent, I don't pretend to be a perfect person. I jump to conclusions sometimes, and sometimes I disappoint people by being a "humorless feminist." But I don't think anyone can stand up and say they don't spend their lives interpreting intent and meaning constantly in conversation and writing.

Anonymous said...

Just for the record

Women have the right to go barechested in Canada
or at least in Ontario

Few if any exercise the right.


Chills

tully said...

Amanda: 1) I think you've hit Gino's point on the head. 2) It is often easier for men to be humorous with these issues because it doesn't seem to affect us. The humorless feminist is, from where I sit, a thinking person who is passionate and aware of the importance of her cause. 3) As you may have noticed, Gino has a nice piece of satire here that may get men to think differently once we get past our initial adolescent response.

4) On a separate note, I think you waste your time and energy responding to K-Rod. I don't say this to insult K-Rod, I just think he's playing a different game than someone who's playing for keeps.

talnik said...

Forget the sex and sexist and feminist angles; they're red herrings. What it boils down to is this: some people think their lives will be without meaning unless they do something profound. However, at 20 years old, those actions tend to be more stupid than profound.
This woman will spend the rest of her life trying to change how everyone else thinks.She is an attention grubbing control freak. Don't blame men or society for her faults, or Gino for making fun of her.

Anonymous said...

talnik.... I find the same is true
of many religious people whether 20 or 75 they seem to find it imperative that they change how everyone else thinks ....and I would even suggest 'attention grubbing control freaks' would also be an appropriate description.

And while I am at it.... I think the sexual objectifying of boobs
is as much the result of womens attitudes as it is mens and is perpetuated by same.

Chills

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

You are inserting motivation. You may BELIEVE it to be true, and it may even be true...but it was not actually said.

You initially said:
only women with attractive breasts are allowed to have opinions
and later changed it to expressing.
(Leaving aside that, if you want to take it seriously, he was speaking of what would be effective, and if you're not taking him seriously, he wants to just see pretty boobies.)

one of the objects of sarcasm might be to be cutting

No "might be" about it-- it's the definition and even root of the word. For someone who is so into reading implications into a text, you sure do ignore implications that are already there in your own writing.

RW said...

"For someone who is so into reading implications into a text, you sure do ignore implications that are already there in your own writing."

For someone who complains about inserting motivations into implications implicated during the implications, you sure insert motivations into implications and implications of motivations too, for that matter.

K-Rod said...

"I just think he's playing a different game than someone who's playing for keeps."

tully, just the facts, ma'am. ;^)

Amanda said, and I quote her, "women are stupid".

Amanda said, and I quote her, "only women with attractive breasts are allowed to have opinions".

For the record, I disagree with Amanda regarding these quotes.

....

I think the human body (especially the female body) is a wonderful and beautiful creation.
I have refused to desecrate my body with piercings or tattoos. If you don't like that, well, don't let the door hit ya where the...

....

"hey, i'm serious.
i love women, and their breasts."


For the record, I agree with Gino!!!!!

Gino said...

hold on a minute. i'm not saying that only lovely breasted babes are allowed to voice an opinion.

this is beyond free speech. cant you see that? this a struggle for different sex rights. a war upon ignorance and sexism.

the enemy is fierce, and its intent evil, so every effort must be made.

i'm calling on ogleable-breasted woman to join the fight. to bear arms through the baring of breasts.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

For someone who complains about inserting motivations into implications implicated during the implications, you sure insert motivations into implications and implications of motivations too, for that matter.

1) I did not state her motives-- suggested once or twice, but made sure to say MAY or COULD or similar.
2) The implication is inherent to the definition of the words; this cannot be said of the OP.

RW said...

lol way too serious.

K-Rod said...

RW, generally speaking, laughing is not very serious. ;^)

tully said...

"Of course, this also means that anything unogled must be first ogleable."

I'm too late to get into the thick of this feminist argument, but I must for now take issue with your grammar. The prefix '-un' generally means "Was not and is not" and thus, something unogleable can, and often would of course be unogled. I think what you mean to say is 'deogled' or 'disogled' which latter two prefixes would mean "become not __" in which case, you are right, "for something to be disogled/deogled, it would have to first be ogleable."

I'll make that my positive contribution to this important discussion.

Brian said...

I've lost track here. Which is the pro-breast side?

That's the one I'm on.

K-Rod said...

Brian I hope we are all on that side.

For the love of...

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

*looks down* Yep, I am. *does a quick poll of the house* Elf and baby Kit are, too.

lumberjack said...

I only post the (NSFW) video because I like the music:

http://vimeo.com/10683927

葉雅慧 said...

成人無碼片線上看免費成人漫免費成人文成人色圖片免費成人影騙日本制服影片日本妹av女優日本妹圖日本性姿勢日本性感熱辣寫真日本性影片日本真情寫真日本做愛姿勢日本無碼免費影片日本免費a短片日本免費a片線上看日本免費a片線上日本女優觀賞日本片免費試看日本片商日本卡通免費a片日本卡通圖庫日本正妹av女優日本成人片卡通日本成人影城日本色小遊戲日本色情按摩影片日本色情區日本色情漫話日本免費av片辦公室偷情遊戲免費視訊聊天網交友覓戀會館情色小說

W.B. Picklesworth said...

What I don't understand is this, why would you want to de-sexualize breasts? Isn't that like trying to make water not wet? Or sunshine not bright?

K-Rod said...

Or beauty not beautiful?

tully said...

Beauty is not beautiful. It is beauty. Beautiful things are beautiful.

K-Rod said...

My beauty of a wife is indeed beautiful.

tully, be very careful of what YOU just said; you can say that shit to YOUR gay internet "friends", but don't you dare say that about any of the wives of us G.O.M.s.

Our wives are indeed beautiful beauties!!!

tully said...

So you're saying, as a simple syllogism would reveal, "our wives are beautiful, only beautiful things can be beautiful therefore our wives are things,"

For the record, I disagree with this claim.

Not to mention that you seem to be overcompensating by referring in excess to your heterosexual partner in contrast to my homosexual partner. That kind of juvenile means of warding off suspicion of homosexuality would be kind of like shouting "I like BOOBIES!" in a locker room, wouldn't it? Or perhaps saying it on a comment thread?

(: narf!

tully said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
K-Rod said...

Sorry, it seems I hit a nerve.
No offense, tully. ;^)

tully said...

I think you have a sense for how much I'm enjoying this...

RW said...

gino you're just going to have to stop peeing for civil rights.

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

I bare my boobs all the time, because I'm a tit-warrior. I went to jail for my cupcakes, and they have rewarded me with money and attention. I am with the resistance! DOWN WITH BRAS! UP WITH PERK!

K-Rod said...

*cue Amanda to claim VLW is an misogynist*

tully said...

Why can't Vanessa be a misogynist? I'm not claiming she is or isn't, but her being a woman doesn't at all preclude her being a misogynist.