HaloScan.com - Comments

The Dawn Patrol: Comments

Weirdly, I'm sort of on the fence on this one. I wouldn't want my daughter to walk out of the house wearing something that short and tight, but at the same time it doesn't seem like something that's wildly inappropriate to wear on a plane. Seems like a little bit of an over the top reaction by the airline. Maybe I'm desensitized to it because I've seen things much worse in public or even in office settings in terms of the amount of cleavage shown or whatever.
Ragamuffin | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:08 am | #

"Seems like a little bit of an over the top reaction by the airline."

So much so, in this day and age, that I can't help but wonder if the reaction was a little less than being portrayed, and the conduct a little more than admitted. In other words, I can't help but wonder if this is a big leap for that 15 minutes of fame.
Yeoman | 09.10.07 - 11:11 am | #

On the poem, and the attitude expressed by the poem, I appreciate the bold defiance it offers to being treated like an object. However, it does indeed ignore that fact that men and women are hardwired on certain things, and that dressing in a certain manner will send that message whether you want it to or not. Merely stating that you don't believe its a message, and don't want it to be, won't make it any less of a message to the ignorant recipient.

That doesn't excuse the uninvited male attention. But, like wearing a t-shirt with a provocative message, merely stating that its only a t-shirt and that's not your view will suffice to separate you from it.

On this sort of thing, I wonder if women are aware that certain clothing simply demands male attention of the worst sort. Most men will pass on making it too obvious, even now. But the intrusive thought on how a person looks is going to get there. Being irritated by it isn't going to stop that. The uninvited attention is not excusable, but the "look at me and my wares" clothing is hard to ignore.
Yeoman | 09.10.07 - 11:16 am | #

Well, I'm glad that the airline personnel actually saw this as a "situation to be taken care of." I find that as a married woman I get angrier about immodestly clad women than I did when I was single. It's not that I'm afraid he'll wander, I just see the harm in it more clearly now.

The funny thing is, when I was in college ten years ago, my friend was strongly admonished by a stewardess about wearing an outfit found too casual to wear in first class -- she was wearing a nylon jogging suit. My friend was initially taken aback, but understood.

It would be nice if airlines had an established dress code it made more public.
Suzanne | 09.10.07 - 11:17 am | #

Thanks for the brussels sprout joke!
Mark Scott Abeln | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:19 am | #

Anytime, Mark!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:30 am | #

Well, it goes beyond that she should cover up and dress modestly for her own good, so that others will not leer and objectify her.

In addition, she should not forcibly impose herself upon others, she should not essentially assault other people's eyes with a lot of stuff that they may or may not really want to see. Frankly, most of us do not want to see that stuff on an airplane. If we want to see it, we know where to go to see it, and an airplane isn't it (neither is an airport restroom).

That's what it comes down to -- we don't want to see it! I mean, to put it in another context, I could walk around 90 percent naked, showing off nearly everything (eww!), but I also know that NOBODY wants to see my practically naked body walking around. (Wasn't there even a Seinfeld episode about nakedness?) Indeed, the sight of my practically naked body walking around in public might turn off some women to the notion of sex forever. (Even just talking about it no doubt makes some of you uncomfortable.) And so, I limit such occasions of nudity to walking to and from the shower in my home. But the rest of the time, I keep my nakedness under my clothes, where it belongs when you are in public!

I'm no prude, I greatly appreciate the human body, and most especially the female form. But nobody wants to see me, and few people really want to see even the sexiest woman, prancing around nearly naked in public. That's why we have laws against indecent exposure. So, before learning the person virtue of modesty, perhaps she needs to learn the virtue of not imposing oneself on others. Then, in thinking of others, perhaps she will then learn to appreciate herself and start seeing the wisdom of modesty for her own sake.
Bender | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:31 am | #

It's kinda interesting that last weekend, CBS Sunday Morning did a cover story on Southwest, which reported that when SW started, some thirty-to-forty years ago, it had its stewardesses dressed just as skimpily, just to draw attention and garner free publicity.

Does this qualify for irony?
Nick | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:40 am | #

Dawn,

I find a lot of things wrong with your assessment of this situation, but as a fellow "big-chested" girl, let me just point out that pretty much no matter what I wear, the girls get showcased. There's not much running from them, and it's pretty rude to call someone out for an naturally-occurring anatomical feature.
Amanda | 09.10.07 - 11:44 am | #

That poem reminds me of the absurdity that self-defense instructors run into that "A woman should have the right to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested". http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.../ RapeAgenda.htm
Scott W. | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:46 am | #

Amanda, I appreciate what you're saying. At the same time, when one is going out in public, to be seen by strangers, it is possible to wear clothing that is looser-fitting and does not call so much attention to every curve of one's anatomy. I say this as one who has a large posterior (and used to wear size 18 jeans).
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 11:47 am | #

"... it is possible to wear clothing that is looser-fitting and does not call so much attention to every curve of one's anatomy. I say this as one who has a large posterior (and used to wear size 18 jeans)."

Just one trivial minute, Dawn!

Dressing modestly to minimize self-perceived faults is NOT the same as demanding a woman dresses modestly to minimize what might be crudely seen as assets!
Jody Tresidder | 09.10.07 - 12:19 pm | #

"Dressing modestly to minimize self-perceived faults is NOT the same as demanding a woman dresses modestly to minimize what might be crudely seen as assets!"

That's true, but Dawn was not arguing that a person need minimize her assets, which brings me to . . .

"I find a lot of things wrong with your assessment of this situation, but as a fellow "big-chested" girl, let me just point out that pretty much no matter what I wear, the girls get showcased. There's not much running from them, and it's pretty rude to call someone out for an naturally-occurring anatomical feature."

That's true too, but it can also be an easy excuse.

While not to get too involved in it, my own lovely spouse is rather large chested. However, she's also very modest, and always dress accordingly. So much so, in fact, that some clothing items she might wear that I'd regard as flattering, but hardly indecent, she will not.

The point is that being large chested, or whatever, really doesn't equate truly with the assumption that they're on display no matter what. Nor does reduce itself to the level that you might as well display everything, because it's on display anyway.

Flattering figures have existed from the dawn of time. But that doesn't truly equate with display.
Yeoman | 09.10.07 - 12:27 pm | #

Dressing modestly to minimize self-perceived faults is NOT the same as demanding a woman dresses modestly to minimize what might be crudely seen as assets!

Did I say that having a large posterior was a fault? You obviously haven't seen mine. :^O
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 12:37 pm | #

"That's true, but Dawn was not arguing that a person need minimize her assets, which brings me to . . ."

I am not sure that's quite the case, Yeoman?

If you picture a flat-chested woman, rather than our Miss Hooters, it is very hard to see what the objection to her outfit could reasonably be.

Therefore, in the example under discussion, it is obvious exactly what requires roomier drapage from the POV of modesty.
Jody Tresidder | 09.10.07 - 12:43 pm | #

"If you picture a flat-chested woman, rather than our Miss Hooters, it is very hard to see what the objection to her outfit could reasonably be.

Therefore, in the example under discussion, it is obvious exactly what requires roomier drapage from the POV of modesty."

Oh, I doubt that.

I do a fair amount of traveling, and also find myself in a lot of places where the young public gathers, from the street in front of my building (there's music store and tattoo parlor out there), to the courthouse. Given that, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that the young flat chested are deterred from displaying whatever they may have, and that they can't rival the bustier for indecent dress.
Yeoman | 09.10.07 - 12:49 pm | #

"Did I say that having a large posterior was a fault?..."

Dawn,

I tried to be so careful about the "self-perceived" bit!!

(Actually I had at the back of my mind something so brilliant you wrote on the old RA's site ages ago. Some idiot had made an ungallant crack - and you came back with a comment about your own mother leaving comments - it had me in stitches...)
Jody Tresidder | 09.10.07 - 12:49 pm | #

"I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that the young flat chested are deterred from displaying whatever they may have, and that they can't rival the bustier for indecent dress."

Yeoman,
I couldn't agree more.

But I was being very specific about Miss Hooters and her specific outfit.

Erase her significant embonpoint, and you've got a woman in a short skirt. Out discussion would therefore become about style- not content.
Jody Tresidder | 09.10.07 - 12:55 pm | #

it doesn't seem like something that's wildly inappropriate to wear on a plane

I'm not big on dressing up, but it seems to me that if it's generally okay to wear something in public, then it should be all right to wear it on a plane, which could be considered a form of mass transit no different from a bus or subway. You can draw your own conclusions about how I feel dressing that way in public.

Airlines are free to craft their own, reasonable dress codes, of course.

Dawn, you made a good point about the young woman's embarrassment being a gift. It's generally considered gracious to overlook another's faux pas, but I was a bit taken aback--I'm a bit too cynical to say I was really surprised--to see she felt humiliated. Did she really think no one noticed until the flight attendant spoke up? She's in the same position she was before she boarded--she made a spectacle of herself when she painted that outfit on before leaving the house--but now it's somehow SW's fault.

I agree that it would be great, only proper, for people (especially men) not to look at her like a toy because of an apparent dearth of modesty. When I see someone walking around like that, though, I have to wonder, was she really planning on being some kind of difficult object lesson?
Ed Pie | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 1:01 pm | #

"But I was being very specific about Miss Hooters and her specific outfit.

Erase her significant embonpoint, and you've got a woman in a short skirt. Out discussion would therefore become about style- not content."

That's likely true.

Again, it's a surprise, in this day and age, that a person would draw a comment on their public dress anywhere, so this is surprising, to say the least. And I'm not at all sure that I agree with the airline in supposedly trying to remove her from the plane (although I'm not totally convinced that this isn't a contrived story).

Having said that, and accepting that she was well endowed, I have to note that I'm really skeptical that she wasn't trying to draw attention to her assets, and in a setting in which there was a captive audience. Most airplanes anymore are very uncomfortable, and everyone is jammed in like sardines. And they're usually a bit cold. I have to wonder about a person who would choose that form of dress when, if you'd been on a plane before, you know you're going to be touching your fellow travelers, and a bit in their face. It seems a little different than wearing the same thing, no matter how inappropriate, on the street.

Again, the airline probably ought to have left her alone. But if she's as clueless as she presents herself, she not only was blessed by shame, but by getting a bit of an education.
Yeoman | 09.10.07 - 1:41 pm | #

I think it's time to post the Shatner video again.
Robert N G | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 2:37 pm | #

I'm going to chime in as a big chested woman. Add to that the fact that I'm pregnant so I'm even more big chested than usual (I dare anyone to find a maternity or nursing bra in a 34DD physically present in a maternity store). When shopping for maternity clothes, the theme these days is apparently "show the girls off as much as possible".

I found a really cute white shirt with red embroidery that is a V-neck style (and will make a nice nursing shirt in a few months as each side can be pulled back). Unfortunately the bras I was able to purchase were a cup size too small (and waist too big). I wore the shirt before I was really showing (my regular clothes stopped fitting VERY early) with one of those too small bras when my mom and I dropped off a carload of aluminum cans at the scrap metal place.

I didn't realize it at the time, mom pointed it out later (barely able to contain her laughter) that the puny bra was not doing ANY good at keeping the girls from jiggling like crazy when I walked. I was sooo embarrassed. Later I finally found a $50 nursing bra that is in the right size and is very supportive. It also doesn't show cleavage so now when I wear it with that maternity shirt it looks like a pretty lace topped camisole under the shirt and is much more modest.

So no matter what I do, the girls always get noticed, but I do try to not draw attention to them by what I wear. Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to find a maternity shirt that DOESN'T show them off and is cool enough to wear during a Texas summer.
Courageous Grace | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 2:42 pm | #

FYI, I found the shirt online and a pic:

http://www.motherhood.com/Images...oducts/ 7473.jpg

The model is NOT big chested...it looks a bit more modest on her than me...lol.
Courageous Grace | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 2:47 pm | #

I have to admit that this post made me think. I, too, read this article, and to be honest, I was a bit angry at the airline for pulling out the poor girl in front of everyone just because her skirt was too short! I 100% believe in dressing modestly, but I guess when I read the article I just felt the girls embarrassment and thought the airline should have just let the issue go. But after reading your post, I have changed my mind. It is pretty cool that the airline did something about it, isn't it? It shows America that it's not just Christians who care about modesty and decency.
V | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 3:18 pm | #

I think it's time to post the Shatner video again.

I don't know about that, but Star Trek TOS did have some nice skimpy outfits. This one from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" was always a favorite.

[Link deleted - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Bender | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 3:35 pm | #

Without commenting in any way on the subject at hand, may I say how much I love Jody Tressider for using the word "embonpoint"? It's been much too long since I saw that word in print.
Ledasmom | 09.10.07 - 4:25 pm | #

It says here that she appeared on national television in the same outfit, and when she sat down she flashed the entire audience. In other words, it's about more than just "the girls." And I think showing that part of one's anatomy in public is always unacceptable.
Barb the Evil Genius | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 4:32 pm | #

Assuming her outfit on the news reports really was the same as she was wearing on the plane, it doesn't seem to me that she could have reasonably expected the airline's action, which is the main social point at issue (dress codes are fine but you should let the people who will be subject to them know about them!). The short skirt was the stated problem, but I suspect that a big part of the problem was just that her breasts were too large for whoever's complaint led to the situation to remain undistracted (and, with respect to her breasts, there was nothing immodest about the outfit).

Some women in my family have large breasts, and I can state with great assurance that, no matter how modestly a woman is dressed, a discouragingly high number of people draw inferences about a woman's moral character from the size of her breasts alone. (What is going on is that the sexual reaction provoked by the woman's undisguisable curves feels so similar to the reaction which is provoked by a woman dressing immodestly that the woman with large breasts is BLAMED for provoking the reaction.)
Joseph | 09.10.07 - 5:13 pm | #

"Look, all I know is that if I don't want to invite muggers, I don't walk around flashing the contents of my wallet."

So is a woman who wears a diamond engagement ring inviting muggers? gold wedding band? Because either of those items would be worth way more than the average cash content of most people's wallets.
Lisa | 09.10.07 - 6:14 pm | #

Lisa, I think the equivalent to Hooters gal would be juggling your diamond ring.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 7:28 pm | #

From what I understand, when she went public with her alleged "humiliation" she was wearing the adjusted outfit. Before her belly was showing and who knows what else. She probably pulled her skirt down an inch or so.

I wish she and others would realize how they offend people by how they dress. I feel so sorry and embarrassed for them. I am offended by cleavage - there is a time and place such as a very formal dance or banquet). I am offended when I see "butt cheeks" and plumber cracks on guys and gals. It is disgusting.

Why do we as a society put up with immodesty? I wonder.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.
Kathleen Marie | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 7:35 pm | #

Modestly Yours is pretty slow now that Wendy's promoting her book.
Joan | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 7:47 pm | #

The Today Show carried the story? 'Nuf said.

Vapid stories for vapid people.
June | 09.10.07 - 8:04 pm | #

All I keep thinking about is what would "Stacy and Clinton" think about "Miss Hooters!" They are hosts of a hilarious show on TLC, "What NOT to Wear." These two would have a field day with her...and by the end of their show they transform these women into fashionistas!
Eileen | 09.10.07 - 8:14 pm | #

I am surprised the SW made a fuss, but if it was because she was flashing her unmentionables when she sat down, I can see them saying something. (I tell my girls, "No one wants to see your undies!")

What is interesting to me is her being embarrassed and asking for a blanket to cover up. Honey, if you are embarrassed and asking for a blanket, maybe you ought to re-think your wardrobe!

As far as big-chested women go, I do have a comment, though I am about as far from being big-chested as you can get. I understand that shirts will be tight, but did you look at the top that girl was wearing? It is made to accentuate the chest!! In fact, that "tiny fake sweater" look is such a "check out my chest" statement that The Soccer Dad and I won't let our girls (6 and nearly 9) wear them at all. The entire purpose seems to be to get people to stare. Now, if you are big chested, it is possible to dress modestly, even if your shirts are going to be tighter than they are on me, for example. I mean, at the very least, you avoid shirts like hers! Get something that draws attention somewhere else, perhaps. I know it's tough to find stuff (trust me, I avoid these styles for myself and my girls, so I do know it's hard), but it's still possible. You just have to be willing to look longer and, sometimes, even pay a little more.
Christine the Soccer Mom | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 8:57 pm | #

Dawn,

Not really, unless she was booty dancing her way onto the aircraft. A diamond ring is pretty visible, but if you prefer, how about a man or woman who is driving a BMW or Mercedes (don't tell me that is not noticeable)? By your logic, people with expensive houses and cars are clearly inviting muggers. Or are they only inviting muggers if they specifically purchased an expensive house or car so they could show it off? Or only if they rev the engine really loud or put the top down (I suppose that last one is especially applicable here)? The whole point of living in a capitalist country, is that property rights are protected by the rule of law. You don't randomly lose your property rights for being obnoxious or tacky.

I think Southwest was totally in the wrong here, basically allowing an employee to make up rules at random. If they want to institute a dress code, they should let customers know up front, along with all the other stuff they tell you when you buy your ticket ($100 fee to change your ticket, must have proper identification, etc). Then, they should train their employees to apply that dress code as consistently as possible. But letting random customers and employees determine the appropriate dress code on every flight based on whatever mood theyre in that day is totally idiotic and disrespectful to a paying customer who is not breaking any laws or preventing other customers from getting exactly what they paid for: their own seat.
Lisa | 09.10.07 - 9:29 pm | #

Again, Lisa, you're missing the point. One can carry a wallet--or a diamond ring--without waving it in people's faces saying, "LOOK WHAT I HAVE! DON'T YOU WANT TO TOUCH IT? DROOL OVER IT, BABY!" Likewise, one can carry a body without dressing as though to say, "HI, I'M ANNETTE AND THESE ARE MY GAZONGAS!"

If my analogy's inept, it's because a body is not merely something one owns--it's what one is. Therefore, the message one sends with it is infinitely more relevant to one's personality than the message one sends by holding up a possession. Abusing one's body--by treating it as an object to be gawked at--abuses one's spirit as well.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.10.07 - 10:09 pm | #

"Abusing one's body--by treating it as an object to be gawked at--abuses one's spirit as well."

I agree with this, Dawn.

But I also agree with Lisa: This kind of thing is almost too random to be applauded. It is based on personal preference of one flight attendant.

Now, if Southwest came out with a policy that it will no longer allow anyone on their flights who is abusing his or her personhood by dressing in a revealing way, THAT would be something.
corita | 09.10.07 - 11:48 pm | #

In the end, the notable thing might be that Americans have simply forgotten how to dress.

People dress in indecent fashion, or adorn themselves with t-shirts with messages that are indecent. Even obsene messages on t-shirts are common, and young girls go out with messages printed on their rumps that should be a major embarrassment to their parents.

I'm not arguing that everyone should dress like Ward and June. But being a billboard isn't a great idea either. A little common sense would go a long ways here.
Yeoman | 09.11.07 - 12:00 am | #

Yeoman said:

young girls go out with messages printed on their rumps that should be a major embarrassment to their parents.

Oh, man, another HUGE pet peeve of ours. Words across the rump? Is Hef dressing our elementary-aged girls now?

SouthWest is probably not right here if they are randomly pulling people out for dressing badly. But if she was embarrassed and felt the need to cover up once on the plane, maybe she ought to think about that before she leaves the house. The people on the plane were most certainly not the first ones to look at her that way or think bad things about her.

Then again, she is working at a place that encourages her to allow everyone to look at her like an object. (And I say that as someone who used to go to Hooters and Wing Hut - for the wings - and was embarassed beyond belief that last time I went. Funny how much we change as we get older and - hopefully - wiser.)
Christine the Soccer Mom | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 10:30 am | #

It grieves me to say this, but the Hooters Gal is dressed more modestly than the teenager standing in front of me at Mass this past Sunday.

I wanted to grab her mother by the arm and ask her what in the world convinced her that it would be a good idea to let her daughter come to Mass in a skin-tight babydoll t-shirt and even tighter Daisy Dukes. With her butt cheeks hanging out.

The mind boggles.
Jen | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:00 pm | #

Boggles my mind too, Jen. The view from the choir loft is always a special experience. I would sadly have to admit that Daisy Duke is strong anecdotal evidence in support of those who are concerned about the loss of the sense of sacred, even in the House of the Lord. Fortunately, I haven't seen any rump labels--yet. I fear that one day I will. Probably on the Sunday when the psalm response is "Our eyes are fixed on the Lord." Oh, I pray they are!

This Sunday's main distraction was a guy in a motorcycle club T-shirt with various patches (including one with a moose--why a moose, I don't know) along with the slogan, "No rules and no dues / I just wanna cruise." Above the slogan, the name of the motorcycle club: The Dawn Patrol.

Kyrie eleison!
C.J. | 09.11.07 - 3:42 pm | #

Dawn, I think you're missing MY point. My spiritual health or lack thereof is not the business of a company that I paid to provide a service. They are entitled to stipulate whatever conditions they want when it comes to provision of service, but those conditions must be clearly articulated BEFORE they take my money, and certainly should not be made up on the fly with no rhyme or reason (SW has admitted that they have no dress code, and apparently on the return flight, the same woman was complimented on the same outfit by the SW flight attendant, and received no complaints from anyone). I happen to disagree with you about revealing clothing being an abuse of one's personhood, but even if I agreed 100%, I would still think SW was way out of line here.

As for the mugger analogy, that just annoyed me because it shows a very cavalier attitude towards law breaking. If a mugging is truly "invited," as you say, by an ostentatious display of wealth, then it is really more of a donation or gift than a robbery, and the "invitee" should not be punished. I see people showing off things that I would love to have all the time. I don't steal those things because it is wrong, and stealing from braggarts and showoffs, even wallet-jugglers, is no less wrong (and no less illegal) than stealing from anyone else.
Lisa | 09.11.07 - 6:28 pm | #

Um, did no one notice what happened when she went on with Matt Lauer? They had her stand up (and she was tugging at her skirt the whole time!), and when she sat back down, the producers (or whoever) had to do that pixel thing over her crotch so she wouldn't blatantly flash everyone watching!

It is a fine line for requiring dress codes on airplanes and elsewhere, but I see no problem with what they did. Maybe it could have been handled in a different manner, but kudos to SWA.
brea | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 10:25 pm | #

"..and when she sat back down, the producers (or whoever) had to do that pixel thing over her crotch so she wouldn't blatantly flash everyone watching!
Jody Tresidder | 09.12.07 - 8:25 am | #

Sorry - comment to Brea cut off: it was -

Brea,
Plane seats face forward.
Jody Tresidder | 09.12.07 - 8:27 am | #

Plane seats face forward.

All the more reason for a flight attendant to get upset.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 9:26 am | #

"All the more reason for a flight attendant to get upset."

Dawn,
Flight attendants do not routinely serve tea and coffee crawling along on the aisles on their knees thus exposing themselves to views up women's short skirts!
Jody Tresidder | 09.12.07 - 9:36 am | #

Pssst. Want real bloggy action? Check out the top of the blog.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 10:02 am | #

I totally deserved that, Dawn!
Jody Tresidder | 09.12.07 - 10:08 am | #

That is very sweet of you, Jody -- thank you!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 10:11 am | #

I think SW does have a policy that this falls under. From another comment thread on another blog:

"Carrier will refuse to transport or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances". One of those circumstances is on page 10: "Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive."

IMO, flashing the panties (or lack thereof) is offensive.

I totally agree with Dawn's take on it. As a mom of daughters *and* sons it bugs me to no end the provocative way younger people dress these days. Why should we have to be bombarded continuously with lewd sights?

Liberty is *supposed* to free us to be virtuous and live rightly under our own power & conscience. Not consistently violate the consciences of others.

No bum-printing or exposed midriffs for my little ones, thanks. (And yes, they make these clothes for LITTLE ones.)

This girl is just taking the opportunity to make a little hay out of the situation. Welcome to America, 2007.
Susannah | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 10:44 am | #

Plane seats face forward.

On Southwest Airlines, some of them do not.

Maybe they've gone back to traditional seat configurations and this young woman might have only risked flashing the people in her row as she tried to get to a window seat (or so the attendant might have feared), but the last time I flew SW, I faced the back of the plane.

I'm not bothered much in principle if a woman wants to walk around in a miniskirt, but she should make an effort to preserve some dignity or just stop pretending not to be obscene (which is not really an option). Does your skirt require a heroic effort to maintain a hint of modesty? Then maybe it's not fit for public use.

I haven't been able to glean a consensus from the comments so far, but the young woman's top is no different from what I saw every day amongst the undergraduates when I was in grad school recently. Judging from the girls I knew--and I might be in total error here--they didn't consider that there might be a difference between dressing like a woman and, well, advertising themselves. They generally didn't even seem to put much more thought into it than "I feel like wearing something more/less baggy than usual today" or "I feel like blue/plaid/business casual/a sweatsuit." Maybe I've got some kind of naive situational blindness, maybe they tried to temper their attitudes a little when I was around, but I could not believe that it never seemed to occur to so many of them that they might be causing more titillation than they had to.

Um, if I've got a question in there, it's "What are young women thinking they'll accomplish when they get dressed in the morning?" Granted this Hooters employee may be an exception, but in my observation they seem pretty cavalier for the effect they seem to be going for. Then again, their male peers seem to take it in stride, so maybe I'm just old and they're desensitized.

As for words across the tush, the idea doesn't bother me any more than words across the chest. It's just the particular words that usually end up there that get my goat.
Ed Pie | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 1:13 pm | #

Ed Pie--I'm with you on the lack of awareness that many undergrads have about how their clothing affects 1. how others (ahem, professors/instructors) see them and 2. how their clothing choices affect the classroom atmosphere. Some of my lovely undergrad students are flashing their "girls" to within a few centimeters of total exposure. Daily. I mean, they seem not to own a shirt that comes within a two or 3 hand-breaths of their collarbone, and usually they add long or chunky neclaces to make sure that everyone's eyes are drawn there. I have a hard time not looking--and I'm a woman! I feel bad for my male colleagues and my male students--we spend a lot of time doing partner work, so these girls are bending over and sticking their assets in their partners' faces. I imagine it's hard to keep lewd thoughts at bay in that situation. Sigh. Enter the V monologues and now there's no hope of telling people that yes, how you dress does affect how people see you and treat you, whether you like it or not.
spanishgrad | 09.13.07 - 10:47 am | #

I am a very modest dresser too, but I am not dumb enough to think that there is "true feminine power" in choosing to dress modestly if the alternative is being publicly shamed based on some guy's discretionary judgment as to what kind of female dress is "appropriate." I am also not dumb enough to think there is "true feminine power" in the cultural perception that women's very worth depends on the amount of skin or lack thereof that we show.

Frankly, I think that the behavior of the airline guy is a slap in the face to all women, including those of us who wear modest clothes. I have never worn an outfit like Ms. Ebbert's in my life, but I take it extremely personally that some guy would take it upon himself to shame me if I did choose to dress that way. My modest dress has no dignity whatsoever if it is coerced. As a woman, my humanity and basic dignity should not be seen to depend on my choice to wear a long skirt versus a short one, or vice-versa.
Pendragon3 | Homepage | 09.13.07 - 11:35 am | #

I think you've got it wrong, Dawn. Your idea of true feminine power is one-sided and limiting. You do have the power to cover your body up however you want, to keep the image of your naked skin to yourself. But considering "that my body belongs to me," as you say, doesn't that also give you the power to dress in more revealing clothing? You do have the right to wear a short skirt and not invite men to have sex with you. You also, surprise surprise, have the right to brag about your fat wallet and not get mugged. You can say that it's stupid to do so, but that's a subjective assessment. I'd still blame the mugger.
Alphonse | 09.13.07 - 1:40 pm | #

Pendragon3, agreed. This pervasive sense of entitlement to judge and slut-shame a woman this way is disgusting.
ironmaiden | 09.13.07 - 1:46 pm | #

I am going to be on the lookout for those folks who ostentatiously flash their wealth so I can mug them.
Col Bat Guano | 09.13.07 - 2:12 pm | #

I thought human bodies were supposed to be good and beautiful, and the appriciation of them was a good thing? What is wrong with men looking at a pretty girl and appriciating it, or women looking at some nice pecs on a man and thinking the same? Its not necessarily objectification...it is an appriciation of a person's beautiful, created by God body.

And it is not empowering to be shamed into wearing dumpy clothes. What is empowering is being able to feel comfortable enough in your skin and confident enough in your appearance to dress in a way which makes you feel beautiful and comfortable, however that may be. I feel more beautiful and comfortable in clothes that fit well, and in halters, tanks, and short jean skirts in the summer. Not because I see myself as an object for display, but because I really like my body and feel more natural with less on it (granted, I'm a pretty tiny little thing with small breasts, so its not like there is a lot hanging out there). I grew up in a beach town/boating community only a few miles from a pretty liberal college town, and everyone from babies to their mamas walked around half-naked in bikinis, tube tops, and halters in the summer. Men almost never wore shirts around the neighboorhood or the docks. Old, young, fat, thin, hairy, etc. Big whooping deal.

I know there are some women who dress a certain just to attract attention or because they have low self esteem, etc. But its not our job to judge motives. If you like to dress less revealingly because it makes YOU comfortable, go for it. If your halters and little skirts make you feel good stepping out of the house, no problem. Its not my business or anyone elses. But don't worry so much about other women's attractiveness. It comes off as insecure and envious; ie. "I'm not a hot sexy babe or secure in my appearance and sexuality, therefore other women can't be either." A woman who is GENUINELY modest, inside and out, for the sake of modesty itself and the empowering feeling it personally gives her, will not care so obsessively about what other women are wearing. She will be secure enough in her own choices to not constantly affirm herself by shaming others. If you are comfy in your own clothes, and in your attractiveness to men, then there is no need to turn your nose down or feel threatened by women who find that less clothing makes them more comfortable.

There are so many other things in life to give a hoot about!

And I have to believe that all of the obsession over trivial crap is a distraction from pursuing real holiness. Kind of like the Pharisees.
A girl | 09.13.07 - 2:44 pm | #

There are so many other things in life to give a hoot about!

Besides Hooters?
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.13.07 - 2:50 pm | #

I feel more beautiful and comfortable in clothes that fit well, and in halters, tanks, and short jean skirts in the summer. Not because I see myself as an object for display, but because I really like my body and feel more natural with less on it (granted, I'm a pretty tiny little thing with small breasts, so its not like there is a lot hanging out there).

The clothing you wear sends a message. And the message is not the one you chose, except in the sense that you chose to wear the clothing, but the ordinary meaning of such clothing in the culture. Just as if you walk down the street shouting, people are not going to interpret what you shout by some esoteric meaning you impart, but by the ordinary meaning of the words.
Mary | 09.13.07 - 7:36 pm | #

"...but by the ordinary meaning of the words."

With all due respect, Mary, there is little agreement here on the "ordinary" meaning of the language of this woman's clothes.

There is also additional room for debate on whether or not it is her body that is, in fact, further distorting our interpretation of her clothes' meaning, if you get my drift.
Jody Tresidder | 09.13.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Who exactly was Southwest protecting from this young lady?

If she had sat next to me, I would have counted it the best thing that happened to me on an airplane since the time I found a $50 bill in the seat.
InkStainedWretch | 09.13.07 - 9:04 pm | #

And the message is not the one you chose, except in the sense that you chose to wear the clothing,

Mary, I'm not sure what you mean by this. And when we're talking about visual and cultural messages, often the bulk of the blame falls to how the receivor acts upon receiving the message.

Here's an example. Let's say I lie down in a crowded shopping mall and yell, "Please, rape me!" There are tons of witnesses, so no one can argue that I didn't ask for it, and politely too. But obviously, anyone who took me up on my offer would be an absolute monster.

My point is that this argument so often seems skewed in sympathy of the recipients of the alleged message. Honestly, how hard is it to keep it in your pants, so to speak. Even some of us secular humanists / non-religious types manage it.
Terezia | 09.13.07 - 9:11 pm | #

Two points that have been overlooked:

1. There is a double standard; no one has remarked about immodest men, and there has not yet, to my knowledge, been a reported incident of a male traveler being harassed for having pants that are too tight, or something to that effect.

2. The weather in much of the country is excessively hot. Therefore, Ms. Ebbert's clothing was entirely appropriate, considering the heat. Staying comfortable should count for something when it comes to clothing.
Sundown | 09.13.07 - 9:36 pm | #

well...considering where I grew up, and where I currently live, the message my clothing sends is "cute, comfortable with herself, and normal". Message depends on context. Because it is totally socially acceptable for nice, upper middle class white Connecticut girls in their twenties to wear halters, fitted clothes, bikinis, and above the knee skirts in the summer. We're talkin' J Crew, not hooker clothes. I'm pretty aware of the message my clothes send. And of course I get checked out. And asked out (by nice guys). But that is NORMAL. Men are supposed to check out and ask out cute girls. Thats how people meet, fall in love, marry, and make babies. Men are attracted to women's bodies, and they are attracted to women who comfortable enough with themselves to dress as they choose. And I've only ever dated guys that treat my like a lady and respect me, so I must be doing something right.

If I was sitting on an airplane next to a hawt man in a tight shirt, I would think "Rock On!".

I went through a few years of "conservative Catholic frump", and my parents used to comment how wierd I looked out on the beach in a knee length skirt and T shirt. My dad asked what happened to my shorts and what the hell I was so uptight about. He said all covered up in the summer I didn't look like I respected myself. Because where I live, all covered up in the summer sends the message that you are either sloppy or ashamed of your body. Again, message depends on context and culture.
Anonymous | 09.13.07 - 10:03 pm | #

Nudity and the sexualization of the human body is a cultural thing, not an absolute truth. In southern Ethiopia, the traditional dress for women does not cover the breasts. During the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete (2700-1450 BC) women's outfits typically did not hide the chest. During the European Renaissance, the cultural fashion was often to have a decolte so low that the areolae almost showed. This was considered perfectly appropriate for Christian women. However, showing an ankle during the same time period was very slutty. Cultural norms change. Clothing styles is just FASHION. Just because somebody doesn't follow the current fashion doesn't mean that they are a slut or cheap or degrading themselves or anything else. It just means that they have a different sense of fashion. It's just clothing, people.
Haydin | 09.13.07 - 10:04 pm | #

Here's an example. Let's say I lie down in a crowded shopping mall and yell, "Please, rape me!" There are tons of witnesses, so no one can argue that I didn't ask for it, and politely too. But obviously, anyone who took me up on my offer would be an absolute monster.

That's because you would be, in this scenario, an obvious lunatic, incapable of consenting to anything, and requiring to be locked up for your safety.
Mary | 09.13.07 - 10:08 pm | #

Mary, once again, you're completely ignoring the spirit of my post in favour of irrelevant details.

I'd prefer to think, however, that you're an amazing performance artist who's subtly trying to lead everyone away from social conservatism.
Terezia | 09.13.07 - 10:34 pm | #

Mary, once again, you're completely ignoring the spirit of my post in favour of irrelevant details.

Terezia, that was the spirit of your post. You can not defend a sane woman's clothing by pointing out that we would blame those who took advantage of an obvious lunatic.
Mary | 09.13.07 - 10:56 pm | #

Anonymous from Connecticut is completely right about context. What message is sent by a particular choice of clothing is entirely dependant on what the norms for the area are.

I would note that in AZ in the summer, short skirts and or shorts are entirely normal - you can and will see 80-year-old women wandering around in them. It might have something to do with the 110 degree weather - you think?

I will also note that (as has been noted before) SW Airlines has never been offended by such dress before. To the point where not only is there a Vegas flight full of women (and men) in scantier dress than this woman at least weekly, but that they used to mandate micro-mini wear for their own stewardesses.

So I would have to say that Ms. Ebbert's dress was not out-of-line for the context of a SW flight in Arizona.

Perhaps the offended steward was from more northerly climes?
Tapetum | Homepage | 09.14.07 - 2:39 am | #

Sundown mentioned that no one has addressed the issue of immodest men, and that lessen some of the, er, heat in the discussion.

The wearer's intended message/reason for wearing certain clothing (it's hot, I'm more comfortable, it's just the fashion, I'm celebrating my body for my own reasons) and the message does the viewer takes away are often different. And yes, context does matter! For example, if a man is wearing a skin-tight ribbed tank top and baggy jeans, he might be saying: it's freakin' hot around here and this is comfortable. Someone walking by on the street might say: that guy looks like a thug/what is he trying to show off?. Someone walking by him in an office building might say: well, he certainly doesn't want to work here long.

Does the guy necessarily mean to send the "thug"/sexy dude/slacker message? No. Does the viewer receive that message regardless of the intention? Depending on the viewer's own mindset, yes. Should the wearer be aware of such stereotypes or possible messages? Yes--he should know when wearing certain clothing might send the wrong message (ie, these are not job interview clothes and/or shouldn't be worn to church).

So...should women be aware of the possible messages they are sending out with their choice of clothing? Yes. We should know what our clothing says to other people, EVEN IF we don't agree with it. For example, I am habitually warm, so I wear sleeveless dresses and tops pretty much until it snows. Some of them have lower necklines than others. Which do I wear to church or to teach in? Hmm...the higher necked ones because I know what message wearing a low-cut sleeveless dress to church might send to some people and/or I don't want my male students looking down my shirt. Yes, maybe they shouldn't think that of me/do that to me, but...I can't control their thoughts or actions, only what I do.
spanishgrad | 09.14.07 - 11:51 am | #

"Yes, maybe they shouldn't think that of me/do that to me, but...I can't control their thoughts or actions, only what I do."

Don't you mean something different here, spanishgrad?

You dress with special modest care over necklines for a class of male students because you want to control their reaction to you?

I think your behavior is entirely sensible, anyway. You have - at church and when teaching - a clear understanding of the clothing codes.

That's the problem with the example here. No one had a clear understanding of any such airline passenger clothing code - and many of us still don't.
Jody Tresidder | 09.14.07 - 1:06 pm | #

My bet is that the woman in question walked past a small child, who looked up, and asked the attendant parent a pointed question.

I'd also point out that the woman managed to flash national TV-- check various blogs for the slow-mo recording-- and it's reasonable to assume that she was being more careful then than she was on the plane.

If the gal felt uncomfortable *after* being told that her outfit was unsuitable, why didn't she feel uncomfortable *before*? The outfit hadn't changed-- she'd just been informed that someone else found it indecent, a fact that surely must have crossed her mind at *some* point.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 2:10 am | #

Jody--Yes, in a sense I do want to control their reactions to me. I want to guide my students and my colleagues into seeing me as a professional by guiding their eyes away from any assets I might have so they are free to focus on my face/eyes as I speak and my words instead of my body. I think that is what most of us do when we put on a business suit to go to work--to help control or guide reactions to us/how people perceive us. I also want to feel comfortable and confident myself, which I cannot do if I feel like I'm the focus of leering gazes or if I'm constantly fiddling keeping my shirt from falling down too far.

And I totally agree that when a certain business or other organization has a dress code, it should be clearly stated so customers can choose to follow it or do business with another company.
spanishgrad | 09.15.07 - 9:59 am | #

"If the gal felt uncomfortable *after* being told that her outfit was unsuitable, why didn't she feel uncomfortable *before*? "

Foxfier,

I almost envy how secure you must be:)

Are you saying you've never doubted your outfit only after getting some "kindly" feedback from someone?

Personally, I think Ms Hooters could have thought twice.

But that goes double for the airline's reaction.
Jody Tresidder | 09.15.07 - 10:51 am | #

Jody T-- After public school? I don't develop thin skin that quickly. I have to believe the person has good taste *and* a point-- and even then I'll weigh my taste against theirs!

There have been a few times where folks who I respect have mentioned that things could be improved in my appearance-- y'know what? They were right.

There was mention above about male appearance not being regulated-- horse phooey. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 4:22 pm | #

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

No problem for me either, Foxfier.

It's an unambiguous message, right?

Which is the opposite to the vexed situation arising from the Shaming Of Miss Hooters!
Jody Tresidder | 09.15.07 - 6:19 pm | #

Good post, Dawn. I do think that a female flight attendant could have better handled the situation (there being something uniquely cruel about a man commenting upon one's appearance); however, the woman in question was dressed to show off her body.

I take issue with the statements that:
1) dressing modestly is always frumpy and indicates a lack of self-confidence; and
2) she could not dress any other way with the heat.

I lived in San Diego. It's freakin hot once you get away from the shore. That does not mean that one must wear skin-tight clothing; in fact, a denim skirt (of any length) would be particularly uncomfortable. I have a few knee and calf-length skirts that are wonderful in the heat: lightweight, swirly enough to keep my legs cool, and really pretty. (A few girls once catcalled me while wearing one. :) )

As for those who think that modesty is the equivalent of frumpy: wander over to Ann Taylor (or, if you're in the South, B. Moss). There is a plethora of classy, sharp, and sophisticated clothing that does not turn one into a walking display.

One final point: I think that this woman has chosen to have large breasts. Surely, she also chooses to show them off.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 7:13 pm | #

Jody- the complaint was that no-one ever regulated guys being indecent. I showed that folks had been doing so for years.

If the woman did something she is ashamed of, she shouldn't be getting mad at someone else for pointing it out. Seeing as she flashed national TV without apparently noticing it, she seems to need someone to *tell* her when she's done something wrong. It's quite clear her mother won't fill the role.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 8:43 pm | #

Foxfier - Jody was pointing out quite accurately in response that men's clothing regulation consists of unambiguous signs, clearly posted. Random shopkeepers do not berate men for outfits that in other venues they would be required to wear (such as at their jobs), nor do I think men would (or should have to) put up with shopkeepers who did. In the few cases where they do, it's generally some form of ethnically popular dress, and quite properly called racism.

Yet everybody and their sister feels entitled to berate random women about their clothing choices, and most people seem to find nothing wrong with this.
Tapetum | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 10:31 pm | #

And your cruciferous foliage, axillary buds, and shallow root system are not an indication that you are a Brussels sprout.

Something with all of those features may indeed not be a Brussels sprout, but instead a mustard plant.
Tapetum | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 10:34 pm | #

One final point: I think that this woman has chosen to have large breasts.

Evidence?

I'm glad the woman in question is not reading this. An assertion like that would embody the essence of the busybody community that turned me off my childhood Lutheran church, as well as one of the reasons I turned away entirely from Christianity.
Terezia | 09.15.07 - 11:23 pm | #

By the way, in Ontario women are legally allowed to be topless in public.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of Southwest's policy regarding breastfeeding?
Terezia | 09.15.07 - 11:26 pm | #

Tapetum - by chance would you mean the prison-inspired style of wearing one's pants around one's knees?

That has been made illegal in some towns. It's not "ethnic," it's showing one's underclothes in public.

As I mentioned earlier, it's highly probable that this woman flashed at least one person, and that is why the public relations person spoke to her.

I'm rather amazed at the sheer number of folks willing to support the woman's outrage, but not that of anyone else.

Terezia, have you looked at the woman in question?

For that matter, if you find equivalence between showing one's underwear and feeding one's child....
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.15.07 - 11:52 pm | #

Terezia,

As FoxFier said, please look at the woman in question. Some naturally well-endowed women have come to her defence, noting (quite correctly) that such women are subjected to different standards. Given the unnatural proportions of this young lady's body (and given her affiliation with Southern California), I have a hard time believing that she is persecuted by an accident of birth.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.16.07 - 7:44 pm | #

"If I don't want to invite muggers, I don't flash the contents of my wallet..."

Ah, Dawn, but if you DID, guess what? THE MUGGERS WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF A CRIME.

"Provocation" does not, did not, and will not EVER be an excuse for a crime. Whether it's a beating, a rape, a stalking or any other act of violence.
jgmurphy | Homepage | 09.17.07 - 6:19 pm | #

Um, Dawn never said that "flashing one's wallet" is an excuse for mugging; that said evidence should be presented to a jury; that said mugger should get a medal after said mugging, should someone flash a wallet.

I read that statement and saw common sense (that which is lacking in our society): if you don't want to be called out on wearing revealing clothing, don't wear revealing clothing. The person who calls you out still owes you respect and dignity.

I cannot wholly prevent crimes against my self, my property, and my person. However, I can do things to reduce the risk of those crimes. If I'm walking through a bad neighbourhood, I'll tuck my purse under my arm. I don't walk around cities alone at night. Should someone attack me at 11 pm, he would still be guilty of a crime; I, however, would be guilty of stupidity.

Feminists will talk about a "rape culture" and "rape schedules." We expect that, in our society, women will have to tailor their lives to reduce the risk of attack. Likewise, everyone (yes, men too!) do things to reduce their risk of crime. We install burglar alarms, lock our doors, insure our property, take cabs home at night, and otherwise acknowledge that the humans around us may try to exploit us. It is foolish for women to not acknowledge that some less-than-savoury men will try to exploit them, too. Should we not defend our bodies with the same zeal that we defend our cars and our laptops?
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.17.07 - 11:59 pm | #

theobromophile, are you suggesting that women wearing certain types of clothing might cause a man to rape her?
Terezia | 09.18.07 - 2:38 pm | #

No. Where did I say that?
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 3:52 pm | #

PS. Is this "National Let's Read Our Own Weird Meanings Into Other People's Words" day? Because I can't wait for tomorrow, if it is.

There are good and bad ways to interpret everything. Welcome to the English language. Please find a benign way to do so before suggesting ridiculous thoughts - it makes the internet a much nicer place.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 3:53 pm | #

I was unclear on how you meant a woman is supposed to reduce her risk of being raped. Since the topic at hand is clothing, I'm trying to clarify if indeed you meant clothing has something to do with it.
Terezia | 09.18.07 - 6:11 pm | #

Um... well, read the entire comment. Again, is this "Let's Take Things Out of Context Day?"

Rape schedules: when you don't walk home late at night alone because of fear of being raped; when you leave the library with your friends so you don't worry about being raped; when you take an expensive taxi or what-have-you instead of walking or taking the Metro, so as to reduce your chances of being raped; when you do not wear high heels while walking, so as to evade an attacker; or when you tuck your long hair into your coat collar, so as to not give potential attackers a way to hold on to you.

I am not trying to make a bad situation worse for any young women who have been attacked; for some of them, it is in broad daylight. Nevertheless, women on college campuses are very likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, and we shouldn't be so stifled by fears of offending people so as to not even mention that smart women try to avoid being drunk and alone at frat parties.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 7:02 pm | #

theobromophile - if you actually pay attention to what someone says, you may have to treat women like adults who can recognize and minmize risks.

Heaven forbid THAT.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 10:44 pm | #

Trust me, theobromophile, you are extremely unlikely to offend any social liberals by suggesting "smart women try to avoid being drunk and alone at frat parties."

I'm still curious as to how this meandering path got into the discussion. Because I thought we were talking about clothing that some might find too revealing for their personal tastes.
Terezia | 09.18.07 - 11:37 pm | #

Foxfier,

Pardon?

Are you the same person who wrote the comment of 09.15.07 - 8:43 pm?

Terezia,

Errr... again, is this National Let's Forget Context Day?

http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9708995/ #346734

The re-print:
Ah, Dawn, but if you DID, guess what? THE MUGGERS WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF A CRIME.

"Provocation" does not, did not, and will not EVER be an excuse for a crime. Whether it's a beating, a rape, a stalking or any other act of violence.

My further comments were:
1) in response to that ( 09.17.07 - 11:59 pm)
2) in response to your query as of 09.18.07 - 2:38 pm
3) further clarifications in response to your query as of 09.18.07 - 6:11 pm

By the way, I was NOT the one who started with the "mugger/wallet - woman/clothing" analogy. Dawn got slammed for it (IMHO, unfairly), and I defended what I perceived to be the sentiment. So if you want to know "I'm still curious as to how this meandering path got into the discussion. Because I thought we were talking about clothing that some might find too revealing for their personal tastes," re-read Dawn's post.

Ugh. I'm getting a migraine from this nonsense.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 11:58 pm | #

theobromophile - Sarcasam, hon.

I'm on your side.

Frankly, as a woman, I'm sick of other females putting themselves at high risk then complaining. It is only sensible and *adult* to minimize risk when you can.

Given the various other posts, I maybe should have used a /sarcasim note....
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 12:03 am | #

Terezia - "too revealing for their personal tastes."

That's an interesting way to describe an outfit for flashing a nation-wide audience....
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 12:05 am | #

Foxfier,

Um, I think the outfit would be far too personally revealing for taste.

I'm sorry that I missed the sarcasm. I thought you were being serious.... mea culpa, mea culpa.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 3:44 am | #

So you mean that the risk you think this woman is running by wearing revealing clothing is that she will be called out on it.

See, I was confused by the sudden discussion of rape, since even in this day and age, people sometimes suggest that a woman's clothing has something to do with her being attacked, when that's obviously not the case.
Terezia | 09.19.07 - 10:33 am | #

theobromophile - it's tough on line. I have honestly met folks that I *thought* were joking but were dead serious.

Terezia- I'd say it has something to do with it, in that it can attract attention, but far less to do with it than seeming small, weak, inattentive, defenseless-- anything else that a human predator might key into. (I happen to *be* small and weak looking. A large part of why I'm working to get my conceled carry.)

I know that clothes are a major factor for "date rape." (I really dislike that term... it should not take three weeks to decide you were raped when you slept with your ex while you were both drunk. True story I was distantly involved in; made me ashamed to be a woman.)
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 5:37 pm | #

made me ashamed to be a woman.

Or ashamed to be a human being? I certainly don't think of women as being more deceitful than men.

I'm not having much luck finding any studies that show clothing is a "major factor for date rape.'" Do you know of any credible evidence for that?
Terezia | 09.19.07 - 8:26 pm | #

However, I do very much agree that seeming weak or defenseless is a huge factor, which tells us a lot about the pathetic mindset of a rapist.

I have no idea of how you carry yourself, Foxfier (and I myself am probably less assertive-looking in person than I should be), but I've been thinking that a self-defense class might not be a bad idea for me.
Terezia | 09.19.07 - 8:36 pm | #

Terezia - when a woman uses the fact that she *is* a woman as a weapon, as an advantage, as a way to harm folks-- then I am shamed to be a woman.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 11:36 pm | #

Oh, and on true rapists-- lets just say that they'll get a very nasty surprise if they're ever stupid enough to think that I am weak.

They may be able to hurt me, but I can hurt them worse. And I will do so, if they are foolish enough not to kill me first. It's one of my biggest flaws.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.19.07 - 11:44 pm | #

I'm not so sure that's a flaw, actually.
Terezia | 09.20.07 - 9:21 am | #

Terezia - it's not very Christian to be vengeful.

Very satisfying, but not very good.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.20.07 - 9:42 am | #

I'm not Christian, and I wouldn't have a problem with it personally, especially when it comes to self-defense.
Terezia | 09.20.07 - 1:15 pm | #

when a woman uses the fact that she *is* a woman as a weapon, as an advantage, as a way to harm folks-- then I am shamed to be a woman.

And this is what's been burrowing at the back of my brain today: that a woman who does this is displaying not necessarily female qualities but human qualities: that of being a con artist. Women and men do this all the time; it's not gender-specific. All this woman did was find an easy chink in the armour of society and exploit it.
Terezia | 09.20.07 - 10:13 pm | #

*shrug* I don't care what her motivation is; her weapon is what concerns me.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 2:11 am | #

That's too bad. Women face enough put-downs from society in general without having to put ourselves down unnecessarily.
Terezia | 09.21.07 - 9:05 am | #

Terezia -- it's not unnecessary.

They are behaving dishonorably, and using a key characteristic of my own identity to do so.

Thus, they bring a bad cast to all who share that characteristic, and taint all further use of it, due to abuse. It's much the same, though thankfully less dire, as the way that Islamic terrorists harm the name of peaceful Muslims, and should be publicly shamed for it.

Their actions deserve to be "put down." They should be acting like adults, not spoiled, manipulative children.

I would be greatly interested in hearing what "society" is doing that is such a "put down."
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 7:04 pm | #

Foxfier, they are falsely and dishonourably using a "key element" of your identity to be manipulative and spoiled, as you say. And I agree. I just don't think that you should be shamed by that.

Let's say someone stole your entire identity (as in identity theft) and used your accounts to buy porn, malt liquor, really ugly home decor items, bad yoga pants and books on Satanism. Would you feel shamed by that?

You shouldn't (unless those are qualities you share, of course). Someone has decided to co-opt a part of your identity. You had no complicity, so why should you feel shamed?

And there is my first point in how society puts down women in subtle ways: the fact that you need to defend yourself for being a woman. I'd love to see an example of a man beating himself up for being a man after, say, every time another man is convicted of raping a woman.
Terezia | 09.21.07 - 11:20 pm | #

Terezia -- actually, I would be held accountable for the example you use-- and I would be embarrassed hugely to have my name slandered. Embarrassment is a form of shame.

Shame isn't just personal. It is a community thing; when a member of a group acts badly, it *does* reflect on the rest. This even goes up to the government level-- thus, diplomats have a job.

If you have not found a man who beats himself up when other men do wrong, you need to get around better men. My guy *still* hurts for the fact that one of his best friends was raped and couldn't stand to be around him anymore. She's the most dramatic example of a man feeling badly for being a man because of the actions of other men, but is far from the only example. (It is also possible that men simply do not talk about it much.)

I do not *need* to defend myself for being a woman-- it is my honor which calls for it.
I need to defend myself because I am small, I need to defend myself because some predators think I am prey. I do not "need" to defend my honor, because it isn't a physical harm.
Because I feel shame, because *I* choose to be a member of an honorable group, and try to uphold honorable actions, the shameful acts of others in my group can shame me.

And you still haven't given an actual example of these subtle put downs.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.22.07 - 2:55 am | #

Foxfier, you don’t actually think you’re morally liable for the actions of a thief who chooses to victimize you, do you? Because you’re not! Anybody who tries to make you think that way is doing you a huge disservice. (I’m not sure of the legalities, but my American parents both have had cards stolen and were not liable, and why should they be, since they exerted reasonable precautions to secure them?)

I believe shame is almost always personal, although I do agree with you about sharing the shame in bad actions committed by people you’ve chosen to share a group with. However, I don’t see how that at all applies to being born a female human as opposed to, say, a male tree frog or an earthworm with both male and female reproductive organs. That’s nothing you had even the remotest option of choosing, according to Christianity. So…shame? Why? How?

when a member of a group acts badly, it *does* reflect on the rest. This even goes up to the government level-- thus, diplomats have a job.

Again, choice. Most folks don’t have the option of changing their citizenship. I’m an American/Canadian raised in the States and living in Canada right now. I find many actions of President Bush morally repugnant (and I’m not referring to the current war; it’s possible to support the troops while not agreeing with the war – I’m a case in point).

I’m still very proud of the good parts of my American heritage, and I did everything that was in my personal power to avoid Bush getting back into office – which pretty much amounted to holding my nose and voting for Kerry. I’m not personally responsible for anything President Bush may do, and I refuse to carry any moral blame there, even though I’m the first member of my family who’s ever voted Democrat. Again, I can’t tell my family how to vote.

Honour is a great thing, and good on you for seeking it, Foxfier. But you can only ever seek it for yourself. Safety is something humans can provide for each other. Honour is purely your own.

I honestly thought you were joking about this:

And you still haven't given an actual example of these subtle put downs.

Okay, off the top of my head:

- Glass ceiling, and everything associated therein
- Competent men are “tough”; competent women are “bitches.”
- Promiscuous men are “studs”; promiscuous women are “sluts.”
-(Most heterosexual) men have extremely lax standards in terms of physical attractiveness, while women are forced to make a gargantuan effort.
- Biological mothers are “caretakers”; biological fathers “help out” by babysitting (often even when they share a home!)
- Childcare workers get paid abysmally, and the overwhelming majority of those workers are women.

Foxfier, if you choose to write back, I’ll read, but I don’t think I’ll post again in this thread. It’s been interesting.

(And congrats on your impending nuptials.)
Terezia | 09.24.07 - 8:20 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan