I got into an argument recently here on reddit with a user named felltir (perhaps this person was a troll...judging by the name, it's not an outlandish theory) but it got me to thinking about something...Feminists often claim sexual harassment is such a problem for women, and when I say harassment I am not talking about assault or rape (so those statistics which supposedly prove that assault and rape are not correlated with what women wear are a response to a straw man argument which I am not making)...In any case, feminists indeed make this claim and many women do as well. So we have that.
Now, if you look at any woman in the subway or passing you in the street you will find that women **relative to men** wear clothing which is far more revealing than men do. Most men wear collared shirts, a pair of gray pants or loose fitting blue jeans and shoes or boots, perhaps a jacket or an overcoat...something simple and anonymous...Women in contrast wear clothing that men would feel utterly ashamed to wear, like booty shorts and skin tight t-shirts with high sleeves (designed to show off even more skin) and women spend far more time concerned with their appearance. Aside from rock & roll musicians, women seem to be the only ones who wear things like skin tight leather pants and short skirts...Men simply do not do this.
Now, if we put this together we have a situation where something doesn't add up. If women were truly sexually harassed to a point where this were a major problem for them (relative to men), the market would dictate that we would find the situation to be completely the opposite...Women would be dressing in far more conservative clothing (relative to men), to ward off this truly problematic harassment.
But here we have the complete reverse taking place...We have women claiming sexual harassment is such a major problem and yet we also have women choosing of their own accord to wear far more revealing clothing.
The same is true of feminists who claim women are overly "objectified" and that this is problematic for women. If it truly were problematic for women, why do they select clothing which objectifies their own bodies?
Now...before anyone straw mans me and says I'm saying women should cover up, I challenge you to point to a section of my text where I said that. I did not say that. My statement is simply that if sexual harassment were such a problem, relative to men, we would see women more covered up, relative to men.
The only explanation for this is that the benefits of women objectifying themselves and of women revealing skin and wearing skin tight clothing (narcissism, control over men, personal exaltation) outweighs the potential costs (harassment, such as whistling or comments)...
And anyone who thinks harassment has no correlation with how women dress is a completely deluded moron who I will not have any discussion with. If you are so far out there that you think how a woman dresses doesn't effect her odds of being harassed you are an idiot.
Now, I truly do believe sexual harassment is a problem for women, but perhaps it's because they are dressing in such a way as to provoke the response.
Enter sex positive feminist and their "slut walks", the complaint that it's not a woman's fault that she wears revealing clothing and is harassed, it's the harasser. See, here we have an instance of feminists throwing gasoline on the flames they themselves are claiming to want to put out.
But isn't this a cryptic straw man? It's not like preventing women from wearing overly sexual clothing and asking them to take responsibility for their actions is something which society doesn't expect of men. If I wore booty shorts and went on the subway and I was harassed, it would be obviously because I am wearing such revealing clothing. If you think about it, these types of slut walks are not an issue of equality...Are they fighting to be able to do something men can do and they can't? No. Men don't walk around in booty shorts, free of harassment.
But this is, for the most part, a free market, and it's a reflection of our values. So, if it is true that more women are being harassed than men and it is true that more women specifically choose to appear this way, it follows that whatever cost the sexual harassment has, the benefits outweigh the costs, at least relative to men.
Whatever, these were just some thoughts on my mind. Anyone else consider this?
Now, if you look at any woman in the subway or passing you in the street you will find that women **relative to men** wear clothing which is far more revealing than men do. Most men wear collared shirts, a pair of gray pants or loose fitting blue jeans and shoes or boots, perhaps a jacket or an overcoat...something simple and anonymous...Women in contrast wear clothing that men would feel utterly ashamed to wear, like booty shorts and skin tight t-shirts with high sleeves (designed to show off even more skin) and women spend far more time concerned with their appearance. Aside from rock & roll musicians, women seem to be the only ones who wear things like skin tight leather pants and short skirts...Men simply do not do this.
Now, if we put this together we have a situation where something doesn't add up. If women were truly sexually harassed to a point where this were a major problem for them (relative to men), the market would dictate that we would find the situation to be completely the opposite...Women would be dressing in far more conservative clothing (relative to men), to ward off this truly problematic harassment.
But here we have the complete reverse taking place...We have women claiming sexual harassment is such a major problem and yet we also have women choosing of their own accord to wear far more revealing clothing.
The same is true of feminists who claim women are overly "objectified" and that this is problematic for women. If it truly were problematic for women, why do they select clothing which objectifies their own bodies?
Now...before anyone straw mans me and says I'm saying women should cover up, I challenge you to point to a section of my text where I said that. I did not say that. My statement is simply that if sexual harassment were such a problem, relative to men, we would see women more covered up, relative to men.
The only explanation for this is that the benefits of women objectifying themselves and of women revealing skin and wearing skin tight clothing (narcissism, control over men, personal exaltation) outweighs the potential costs (harassment, such as whistling or comments)...
And anyone who thinks harassment has no correlation with how women dress is a completely deluded moron who I will not have any discussion with. If you are so far out there that you think how a woman dresses doesn't effect her odds of being harassed you are an idiot.
Now, I truly do believe sexual harassment is a problem for women, but perhaps it's because they are dressing in such a way as to provoke the response.
Enter sex positive feminist and their "slut walks", the complaint that it's not a woman's fault that she wears revealing clothing and is harassed, it's the harasser. See, here we have an instance of feminists throwing gasoline on the flames they themselves are claiming to want to put out.
But isn't this a cryptic straw man? It's not like preventing women from wearing overly sexual clothing and asking them to take responsibility for their actions is something which society doesn't expect of men. If I wore booty shorts and went on the subway and I was harassed, it would be obviously because I am wearing such revealing clothing. If you think about it, these types of slut walks are not an issue of equality...Are they fighting to be able to do something men can do and they can't? No. Men don't walk around in booty shorts, free of harassment.
But this is, for the most part, a free market, and it's a reflection of our values. So, if it is true that more women are being harassed than men and it is true that more women specifically choose to appear this way, it follows that whatever cost the sexual harassment has, the benefits outweigh the costs, at least relative to men.
Whatever, these were just some thoughts on my mind. Anyone else consider this?
