Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:07:29 PM
Anne K. Ream
disses the “modesty movement” in an opinion piece in today’s
Los Angeles Times.
What is it about the growing "modesty movement" that makes me so nervous?
Maybe it is women going against the flow of immodesty and degrading hook-ups. If some women can be modest
and be successful, accomplished, and accepted, then other women lose their “I have to flaunt it or I’ll be left behind” excuse.
The faith-based website purefashion.com, which encourages teen girls to "live the virtues of modesty and purity," instructs young women to be "helpful at home . . . obedient and happy."
Oh,
the horror! What’s next? Men being expected to be faithful to their wives, be the primary breadwinner of the family, protect their families, and lift heavy objects? Oppression!
What's troubling about this language is how neatly it anticipates the findings of a Yale University study showing that men who get angry in the workplace are admired, while women who express displeasure are seen as "out of control."
Maybe that has to do with the differences between men and women and how they relate to each other. Nobody complained about the behavior of my female bosses more than my female coworkers.
So much for the idea that well-behaved women rarely make history.
As if
men who stand in line are in the headlines every day. Susan Smith, Andrea Yates... they made history, didn't they?
Apparently, it's far more important for girls to make nice.
No, if you can find a man who either likes drama and craziness in his personal life, or is too insecure to do anything about it, then I guess you don’t have to make nice. Me, I’d rather live in a home that is warm, peaceful, and pleasant. Silly me.
No one would argue that the right to say no to sex isn't a good thing.
Of course not. It is one the main ways feministas punish their husbands.
But when Shalit argues that "many of the problems we hear about today -- sexual harassment, date rape…are connected to our culture's attack on modesty," she is making a dangerous leap.
It's not a lack of female modesty but a sense of male entitlement that leads to sexual violence.
Maybe it is both. While it is correct that men should control themselves regardless of what a woman wears or does, immodesty
can make a woman a more likely target. All other things being equal, most harassers and rapists are going to target a woman who is dressed less modestly or behaves less modestly than another equally accessible woman. If you go to a guy’s bedroom naked with a bottle of vodka, he doesn’t have the right to rape you, but it will be much easier for him to do so. And yes, he can and should be prosecuted and thrown in prison, and even sued. But you’d still be the victim of a rape. Liberated, but raped.
And therein lies the problem with so much of the modesty movement. Scratch the surface, and what's supposed to be good for girls reveals itself to be all about the boys: dressing in a way that doesn't over-excite them, demurring so that their manhood remains intact and holding tight to our sexuality until we find a husband who is worthy of that ultimate "prize."
Maybe you consider your sexuality and body something to be given away to another casually and lightly, but not everyone woman does. Hence the modesty movement. And guess what? Something that can benefit men can also benefit women. Things can work that way when men and women are considered complimentary partners, not enemies and rivals.
What's lost in this view of the world is the power of female desire: not just sexual and sartorial but professional and intellectual. There is something liberating about a girlhood (and womanhood) that is not lived solely in anticipation of, or in response to, a man.
Oh, you should definitely not live solely in anticipation of a man. Don’t run up debts expecting a man to come along and pay them, for example. One the flip side, you could say that a man who is saving up his money and building his career beyond what he needs to support himself is living in anticipation of a woman. Should he not do so? Should he instead cut back on work and spend more time with his buddies and hobbies?
There's something freeing about a world in which women have the right to take risks (and to get mad).
There are many ways to do that without showing us if the carpet matches the drapes or if you have hardwood floors.
I suppose I'd feel better about the modesty movement if it had its parallel in the world of men.
The parallel for men would be all about not flashing their money. Let’s be honest here. Women are immodest because they think it will give them an edge over other women and attract a “better” man. Men flash the cash (nice cars, expensive suits, etc.) because they think it will give them an edge over other men and attract a “better” woman.
Look, there’s a side to me that enjoys fashions that have allowed me to picture a woman naked with minimal effort. That’s how men are built. But the reality is, our nature also brings the result of us focusing on the body of that woman to the extent that we fail to deal with her as a person. You’ll get attention, but you won’t be taken seriously. That’s reality, and no amount of social engineering is going to change it.
You have the freedom to be immodest and to write in a way that knocks those who aren’t. But the modesty movement is on to something, and you can’t bring all of those women down to your level no matter how hard you try. We're not going to let all of our young women fall into the trap of hook-ups and amateur online porn.
Go ahead and let it all hang out. That way, decent men who want a woman they can take seriously know to avoid you.