Reasoning looks logical to me. Why would she be forbidden from walking topless when men aren't forbidden. It makes no sense. We should just let her do that and move on.
Let her and others walk. We can really give the thumbs up or thumbs down on size and form. Plastic don't count.
Simply wonderful. This wins a Dayhoff Dr. Pepper Award. As a matter of fact this post warranted the creation of a new award, “Reductio ad absurdum award.” Thanks
Kevin Dayhoff
www.kevindayhoff.net
I agree with the first commenter. Whereas there's a direct link between the genitalia and sexual activity, the sexualization of the female breast is a little more spurious. Would you be in favor of prosecuting a woman who breast-feeds in public?
Obviously there are biological differences between men and women, this blog entry's straw-man sarcasm aside. However, different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes indecent exposure, and as far as government involvement is concerned, I think erring on the side of minimal government intrusion is best. Society is harmed less by the rare topless woman in public than it would be by the statement that's made by upholding laws requiring them to cover up.
If the writer of this blog took his arguments to their obvious conclusion (it would seem that he's arguing that women ought to be legally required to cover anything which could be conceived of as sexualized or indecent) I don't see what logically prevents him from carrying on to the argument that women should have to cover their hair and all exposed skin except their faces in public. After all, to some, these are also sexualized.
I think the founders clearly fought the Revolutionary War for the right of women to go topless on the streets of Manhattan.
As for straw-man arguments, how about these: (1) prosecuting breast-feeding mothers, and (2) requiring women "to cover their hair and all exposed skin except their faces"? New York managed to exist as a state from 1776 to 1992 without allowing public female toplessness, yet, at the same time, without also putting women in burqas. Someone ought to look into how the state was able to accomplish that remarkable feat.
I think the question is one about fairness and about recognizing some differences.
Men can't breastfeed, so whatever rule we come up with, it will obviously target one specific group of people.
Men and Women both have breasts. Is the issue the size and shape of the breast? Could a guy needing a bro walk down the street without a t-shirt? How about a woman that had her breasts removed because of breast cancer?
At the end of the day, this particular distinction is in our head. The same way that in the muslim culture the distinction will be about the hair, etc. BTW, in Muslim countries, it's not just women that get the fashion police. It's also badly seen when a guy wears shorts, where as here in america, we barely notice a miniskirt.
So once we let go of this obsession with breast, we will notice that the state will also exist from 1992 to 2192...
It would be great for you to post your perspective on the following hypothetical: Should guys be allowed to walk topless?
Guys walking topless is not a hypothetical; it's an ugly reality. I personally don't think it's dignified. But this breach of taste is not prohibited.
We draw lines in our society and in the law, because they generally make sense. We don't have to deal with fat men or with women who have had mastectomies. The former are still men and the latter are still women.
We draw many distinctions between the two sexes based on our longstanding traditions and a reality that has served us well for generations. Sure, in some kind of collectivist utopia, we could eliminate any distinctions between men and women, but you'd have to agree to be governed by Catherine MacKinnon and her friends.
Are you throwing a little "stare decisis" magic our way?
Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it right. I think we should always be on the lookout of things we do wrong, or that we can improve on.
We clearly will never be able to erase every single difference between men and women, between people of different faiths, between races, etc. That doesn't mean we can't address particular problems.
My point is that "generally make sense" is a cop out for not addressing the underlying issue.
What is our real concern with women walking topless? Will it cause crime? Will it harm people? If we can't spell it out and fall back on "common sense", then it's a bad start. It's circular reasoning at its best! (we don't allow it because we used to not allow it).
What is the "an important governmental objective" ? Having different looks for breasts isn't an objective, it's a fact. By discriminating, what is the government trying to achieve?
If we pass a law that says women have the right to take paid maternity leave for the duration of the delivery, it's clear what the objective is. Here, it's not clear to me.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
