...yeah. I know. I find that whole idea to be a huge mind-fuck, too. This whole take was largely inspired by something recently said by fashion-darling Alexa Chung. Not that the idea hadn’t occurred to me previously, but when I read about how Alexa Chung had stated that she generally dresses in a more ‘masculine’ manner (think trousers and brogues) not only because it’s ‘empowering’, but adding that she ‘wishes she was a boy as it’s easier’, that was no doubt the straw that broke the camel’s back.
To me, dressing modestly has never felt empowering. I’ve never felt a rush of power or authority being earned/given to me by adhering to expectations placed on millions of women by men (as well as other women) to cover up because any skin that’s showing and is not reserved solely for their husband’s eyes equates to them being a ‘slut’. Nobody wants to bear that cross, now do they?
The whole idea of how anyone could find it empowering to be judging other women and thinking of them as below you for nothing more than simply choosing an outfit that confirms common suspicions that yes, under this dress/shirt, there lays a pair of breasts, sounds like a joke to me.
As does the idea that someone could view themselves as ‘holier than thou’ purely because they’re, ironically enough, enabling the patriarchal views of how a woman’s value lies in her purity. That if a woman is covered up from head to toe, she’s by default a virgin, and I’m sure we’ve all encountered a fair share of virgin hunters. In other words, men who seek women under the sole requirement that no other dick has penetrated her in the past.
I’m sorry that I find it pretty damn ironic how many people shame women for wearing things such as a burqa/sari. Deeming that as ‘overly oppressive’ and robbing these women of having equal rights. Then these same women will turn around and shame women who DO embrace their rights to show some skin. Some parts of their body that they know will attract (largely sexual) attention like cleavage. What in the fuck is wrong with that, though? Granted that these women are covering up when they enter places like a church/temple and whatnot, it’s not like their bare legs of lower-cut tops will hurt anybody.
SOUNDS LIKE A CLASSIC CASE OF THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.
The level of nudity that is considered appropriate varies by culture- there is nothing inherently wrong with showing a bit of skin. Many people who are pro-modesty advocates like to stress the point that people (primarily geared towards women) who do dress in a way that we can confirm they ARE females are, in doing that, ‘demystifying the human body’. Because society would be a much better place if women not only hid the curves and sexual-side of their body, but hell- were forbidden from being seen at all!
(^note the sarcasm. Okay, wait. A large chunk of this take will be sarcastic so… I’ll mark the sarcastic parts with italics to prevent the shit from hitting the fan.)
Some key points that advocates of the belief that keeping your body fully covered is the equivalent to feeling fully empowered like to throw out at random-
1. Modesty= the large part of a woman’s value being placed on her body
When women uncover or partially reveal parts of our body, we’re ‘cheapening’ their value. Nothing makes me feel more powerful and in control then enabling the belief that men would want nothing to do with women who have been checked out by others. I have so much more to offer than a vagina and good pair of tits but fail to realize how that completely contradicts pushing the thought that women showing some cleavage makes them ‘damaged goods’.
2. Modesty promotes female ‘self-respect’ whereas giving proof that we have a body hiding under those robes/turtle-necks is straight up objectification.
Since when is a man looking at you and finding you to be sexy offensive? Has modern-day feminism really come so far that being admired for a big part of what makes us women and illustrates our femininity is now a bad thing?
I mean, sure, there’ll be an occasional guy straight up ogling which is inappropriate and a valid reason to feel a bit uncomfortable. However, occasional glances or guys checking you out doesn’t leave you being consumed or any less of a person than you were beforehand.
Again, you have to stop tying women’s value to their physical appearance and how they present their bodies. You’re free to dress however you please, be it in skimpy attire or a burlap sack. Whoever think that the main, if not only way, that women can gain ‘respect’ is through the way they dress needs a serious reality check.
3. A women’s dignity goes a little deeper than how much of her tits you can see.
Sure, sometimes women will go out of their way to make themselves feel attractive. Dressing or styling themselves in a way which will raise their chances of finding a potential mate. Can you tell me what’s inherently wrong with that, though, without just regurgitating things that have been shoved down your throat by your religion/culture? That by some dark magic, the way a woman who doesn’t even acknowledge your existence has chosen to dress, has infringed upon your own personal morals? Do you seriously think so lowly of other women that you base your entire perception of what they’re about and how much you value them as being based on their body?
Damn my feeling extremely confident when I wear yoga pants or workout capris, paired with a semi-sheer t-shirt, to the gym. A place where no religious/cultural norms are broken and such attire is perfectly appropriate. Trust me when I say that I’ve gone through my fair share of workouts getting sweaty af, red as a tomato, because I couldn’t fathom what people would think of me if I wore shorts on the elliptical.
Until the day that I decided to fuck it. They can think whatever the hell they want. In the end, it’s public property. I’m just as entitled to work out in the apparel of my choosing as they are to pass judgement on it.
To the common retort that I (or any woman who has embraced the benefits of working out in shorts versus full-length, lycra leggings) must have 'no respect for myself', I tell them- no, good sir, I have plenty. I simply choose to place the bulk of my 'self-respect' and self-value in how far I've come in almost finishing my degree, as well as in my work helping out multiple children with autism, among several other areas other than how my curves are highlighted in certain types of apparel.
If someone is going to think any less of me for wearing a shirt that shows cleavage or wearing skin-tight yoga pants in public, that’s not someone whose ‘respect’ I’d want or put much worth into, anyway.
Where’s the logic behind telling people they should dress in a certain way, to ensure that they will satisfying judgmental people who inevitably care more about how you look than your internal value?
In reality-
Women are not objects that can be “consumed.” While it may be true that there are (and always will be) some people who reduce women to objects, covering up and dressing more modestly won’t change that.
What are we to take away from claims that by dressing in clothing that shows minimal skin, the female will increase her value in the eyes of other’s? Well… that basically only encourages the idea of how a woman’s primary source of value lays in her body. There is some serious irony going on here.
TLDR: Modesty advocates will often try to ridicule the objectification of women only to then turn around and reduce women to objects themselves. Similarly, they often deride the tying of women’s value to their physical appearance by… tying women’s value to their physical appearance.
Most Helpful Opinions