Inadvertently of course. Though it’s quite sad that they campaign with such passion to be exactly what patriarchy (and capitalism) wants of women.
Take slut-walk for instance. Sure, I agree that women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want and not be oogled or worse raped. But we all know that clothes have nothing to do with men oogling, passing remarks, sexually harassing or raping women.
There are friends of mine who despite wearing an abaya have been subjected to first three. I’ve heard cretinous men making disgusting comments though I was wearing a long sleeved kurta (not figure hugging) and jeans.
So men will harasses women no matter what they wear.
If I’ve managed to convince you of that, then the easy part is over. In order to illustrate how wearing revealing clothes is buying into exactly what patriarchy wants, I’ve posted a little quote from John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’. It should help you understand the difference between being nude and naked (hopefully).
“To be naked is to be oneself.
To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognised for oneself.”
― John Berger, Ways of Seeing
Tribal women in Africa are naked. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you wear a pair of shorts because you feel comfortable in them, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re exposing parts of your naked body because it makes you comfortable or helps you function better, then by all means you should continue to do so. The problem arises when women are ‘nude’. When they expose their bodies not for themselves but for men.
The day before I left for Nepal, I was at a social gathering of sorts and I noticed a girl in a very short dress. The dress ended a little below her bum. She didn’t look very comfortable in her dress. In fact, I think she must have been quite uncomfortable in it because every two minutes she would tug at the hem of her dress pulling it down. Every time she moved she seemed to instinctively pull her dress; putting whatever she was holding aside to do so.
From what I could see she wasn’t dressing for herself; she was dressing the way (most) men want her to dress; how patriarchy wants her to dress. By giving into patriarchy, she becomes an object in the eyes of the men in the room. An object for all the men to enjoy, at the expense of her comfort and mobility.
Now that wouldn’t be the same if she was completely comfortable in that dress. If she was exposing her legs and thighs, but had to compulsion to pull her dress down and could move about freely, then she is not nude.
Here’s a little extract from ‘Ways of Seeing’-
“But this has been at the cost of a woman’s self being split into two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is walking across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman. She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another….One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object — and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.”
So when feminists say they should have the freedom to dress as they please and walk on the streets in clothes that to them are symbols of liberation, but in reality they are uncomfortable, restrict their movement (such as tight clothes) or harmful to their health (4 inch high heel shoes will make their hips swing as they walk but it’s a strain on their spine and calves), they may well be shooting themselves in the foot.
Well, isn’t it up for an individual to deiced whether they’re comfortable in their clothing or not? I mean, it’s kind of sad to see Women criticizing each other as to how they should dress. So what if she was uncomfortable? I don’t think it’s anyone’s right to judge. Not Men, nor Women.
I also don’t think it’s quite right for someone to say one way of protest is better than another. Unless one form of protest involved violence. The reason why the slut walks BEGAN was because MEN in authority remarked clothing had something to do with violence against Women. It doesn’t. And I think that is the point.
Oh, and focusing on issues like if Women should or shouldn’t wear tight clothes or heels, is a distraction from real issues such as Pay Equity, Child Care, Sexual Harassment, Reproductive Rights and so on.
But, that’s just my view
I’m going to have to agree with Pumudu on this; I think the issues aren’t so much about the right to wear clothes (though that is included) but much more important issues as mentioned in the comment. Same regarding slut walk; the point of the whole protest was to fight against the notion that women got attacked and raped because of what they wore. The movement is not to fight for rights to wear slutty clothing.
You make some interesting points regarding the ‘naked vs nude’ argument however, and I especially like the passage from “Ways of seeing”.
@pumudu and @gehan- I’ve mentioned that women are free to wear whatever they want. Even super revealing clothes; as long as they are doing it for themselves and not for the men around them.
Yes. But, I found how you judged someone without knowing them at all to be a little callous. Just because one doesn’t dress like that, doesn’t mean that one gets to pass judgment on others
It’s what I observed, but I accept that I cannot have known what was going through her mind.
“Take slut-walk for instance. Sure, I agree that women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want and not be oogled or worse raped. But we all know that clothes have nothing to do with men oogling, passing remarks, sexually harassing or raping women.”
i think the term “slut walk” seems to have confused you as it has many others. slut walks originated when a person in authority, a policeman to be specific, said “women should avoid dressing like sluts”. the idea behind it, like those commenting above have mentioned, is to protest people blaming rape victims for being raped. as someone noted elsewhere, “..women aren’t marching for the right to walk down the street dressed in barely-there clothes, as critics suggest. They’re fighting for the right to walk down the street. Period.”
“So when feminists say they should have the freedom to dress as they please and walk on the streets in clothes that to them are symbols of liberation, but in reality they are uncomfortable, restrict their movement (such as tight clothes) or harmful to their health (4 inch high heel shoes will make their hips swing as they walk but it’s a strain on their spine and calves), they may well be shooting themselves in the foot.”
Feminists aren’t fighting only for the freedom to wear heels and tight clothes, they are fighting for women to wear WHATEVER THEY WANT. it includes fighting for both the freedom to wear short skirts and bikinis and burqas and face veils (in places like France where it has been banned). and your notion that it’s only revealing clothes that are uncomfortable and restrict movement is also one i find to be flawed. i find sarees uncomfortable and they restrict my movement but i wear them, sometimes because i have to, sometimes because i want to. that’s what feminists are fighting for, for us to be able to wear what we want .
it’s bad enough when men judge women based on their clothes, but one woman doing it to another is just plain regressive.
And as many major campaigns go, people will interpret things as they wish. As you’ve mentioned the reason for slut-walk has been blurred. From what I’ve read even
feminists seem to be confused. And this post is based on that; I should have been on more clear.
As for the freedom to wear a bikini or burqa, read my comment above. Or the post over again.
no my dear girl, feminists are not confused, you are. i did read the post, several times, and the comment. what i got was that you think feminists are confused, that slut walks are about the right to wear tight, revealing clothes which in turn panders to patriarchy and that you think women wearing tight clothes and fidgeting with them are “dressing the way most men want them to dress”.
you see, patriarchy doesn’t come in one form; it doesn’t tell women all over the world to wear tight, revealing clothes. patriarchy comes in many forms, some of which actually tell women to cover up, from head to foot.
if this post is just about slut walks, then fine, people are allowed to interpret things anyway they want to and they’re even allowed to be confused by a message which they don’t understand. my basic gripe with your post is your assumption, and the judgement based on that assumption, that women wear certain clothes only to please men, and that only tight revealing clothes are a symbol of patriarchy.
I’m not assuming that… I know full well that because of patriarchy women are being forced to wear the burqa. Whether it’s completely covered or revealing if a woman dresses according to how she thinks society/patriarchy wants her to dress and not for herself then it’s a problem. And of course figuring out the difference is going to be tough. You can’t really say why someone chooses to dress the way they do. And sometimes you can’t even read your own self to say why you dress the way you do. The example I’ve used is something I observed. And the girl looked uncomfortable. For all I know she may have been fine. I was just using it as an example to get a point across. I obviously cannot know what was going through _her_ mind.
It’s a fine line distinguishing between the two. Mostly impossible even. But this is a concept to mull over; I was fascinated by John Berger’s theory.
“So when feminists say they should have the freedom to dress as they please and walk on the streets in clothes that to them are symbols of liberation, but in reality they are uncomfortable, restrict their movement (such as tight clothes) or harmful to their health (4 inch high heel shoes will make their hips swing as they walk but it’s a strain on their spine and calves), they may well be shooting themselves in the foot.”
How or where does freedom to dress how they want only equal tight clothes or high heels? I believe slutwalk is not only about clothing but about sexuality and the double standards applied to men and women. For example a promiscuous man is a ‘stud,’ a promiscuous woman is a ‘slut.’ If the post is about slutwalk shouldn’t that be addressed?
That’s not what I’ve said. I’ve met many women who say they have chosen to wear the abaya. And one of my best friends chose to wear the niqab (face veil) even though her father vehemently opposed it.
Agree with some of what you say. But It is wrong to say that clothing has nothing to do with the way men see women. Clothing can be provocative or non-provocative. These are labels that are assigned by the clothing and fashion industry itself. Provocative clothing ‘provokes’ non-provocative clothing doesn’t. It is somewhat shallow to put forward a generalization like ‘clothing that women wear does not matter’ to how men view them. The physical for is psychologically associated with sexual urges, And accentuating it more so.
To judge whether how a women dresses affects men or not, you must ask men, and not base it on experiences of women. Also since these women experienced actual abuse then it means it came from a man who was already mentally sick. And what made this man sick must be researched in the broader societal context he is exposed to and the incident of abusing a ‘modestly clothed’ woman alone is too narrow to judge his motivations.
I’m glad someone understands the post a bit
But I have to say that, in that case a good 70% of men are mentally sick. Harassment and abuse are inflicted on women by men all the time. It can be something as stroking her thigh in a bus– can be label that man mentally ill?
How men perceive what is provocative and what isn’t is questionable too. In a city one man might think a woman wearing skinny jeans is not being provocative, while another man does and makes lewd gestures.
Its wrong to say that all men who find women provocative, abuse them. Men can find women provocative and choose not to abuse them. The act of abuse, insofar as it is a crime, requires a criminal mind. So drawing a linear formulaic relationship between these two phenomena is incorrect.
Also i think you should think carefully about your assessment that 70% of men abuse women. Is that a statistically backed figure? If so does that mean that 7 out of 10 men in your family and within your friends/colleagues sexually abuse women? That your father or brother has a 70% chance of being a sexual abuser (forgive me if i am too graphic here)
Also, and i ask you this since you appear to be Muslim (correct me if I am wrong), does not Islam prescribe modesty in dress and attitude for both men and women? and does it not tie such modesty to preventing social ills such as abuse, rape and harassment? Interested in your stance on Islamic viewpoints on the whole issue.
Just a few thoughts. This issue I feel is far more complex, holistic and interconnected with various other social dynamics than feminist and pseudo feminist viewpoints would like to admit
I’m not saying _all_ men find women provocative. Read my skinny jeans example. I’m sure you don’t harass women. And many of my male friends don’t either.
And yes, there are other factors in play as well; like I mentioned capitalism. BUT this post is about John Berger’s concept of ‘ways of seeing’, which is one facet. That is all.
And if you think Berger is off his rocker, that’s fine too. I don’t expect anyone to buy it. I’m simply writing about the concept.