POLL: Gender related opression

Remove all ads!

Sorry Chevalier, I wasn't being completely clear. I wasn't trying to suggest that women and only women should vote to determine whether or not they are allowed to go around topless. I was using the women voting thing as an example to demonstrate how a group can opress itself. The human sacrificing thing was also only an example. My main point is that I don't think that there should be a law prohibiting women going around topless (yes NOG, this includes ALL women, not just those I find attractive). The general western social custom is for women to cover their tops, and the law enforces this custom while giving men more freedom regarding going around without a shirt. Now it is easy to figure out why the custom is for women to conceal their chest while men can expose theirs'-a lot of people have posted speculations on why this is the case. But I'm not debating the custom, I'm just saying that the law shouldn't enforce a custom. Rather, women should have the freedom to expose as much of themselves as men do. If women want to, fine. If they don't (and I think its safe to say that most still wouldn't) then thats at least their decision, not the governments.

 

Contrary to what some folks may think, I don't think that it is gender based opression, either. I just think that some reasons to support it are valid and others are invalid. When arguing against some of the contentions made here, I was argumenting the supporting points, not the ultimate conclusion about the subject.

 

@deepfae: What about clingy swimsuit bottoms? They will clearly favour women, exposure-wise, because guys have a bit more meat there. Or boxers vs slips, while women don't really wear bottoms different from bikini bottoms. Not like those things are illegal for men, but there are some social impressions and standards there. See, it's not like women are the sole victim of the evil biology or whatever. But yes, I'm not sure if it should be illegal and a crime. If social customs are so prevalent and so valid and all, they should sustain themselves on their own. But to some people, making something legal means the authorities think there's nothing wrong with it. Imagine the campaigns saying topless sunbathing is legal, therefore ethical/moral (how screwed up logic), therefore there's nothing wrong with it and whoever dares suggest otherwise is a Nazi bigot... yadda yadda.

There might be some hypocrisy in keeping porn legal while banning the real, walking thing. Especially if porn is easily on display in shops. But I've just seen a newspaper in which there was a breast show contest and a woman aged 21 posed half-naked because she was dreaming of a holiday in a warm country with her husband (they're a month after wedding and it's winter here), aged 25, who convinced her to pose. Even in the photo, she looked quite ashamed and much too innocent for topless modelling. I tend to agree with liberals, libertarians and others on that people should have enough of a will not to do what they don't feel good with doing and that people shouldn't be protected from themselves too much. But think of all the peer pressure and associated drama etc. If a girl or woman does it once, she can't really delete the record by just covering up the next time. Or at school or work. Or by telling someone to stop peeking.

[ February 24, 2006, 12:05: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Ah, fun with a representative government and peer pressure
The problem with a representative government is that the politicians who represent the people often (who am I kidding practically all the time) base their policies on what will keep them in power, not necesarily what is right. Thus, they tend not to make any policies (like allowing women to go topless) that would make it seem like the representatives endorse such a policy moraly. The general populace will tend to assume that if a politician endorses removing the ban on something (like, once again, women going topless) that the politician endorses the action itself. Wheres an enlightened politician/representative might want to give women the option to go topless because he believes it is wrong to prohibit this, even if he doesn't like to see topless women, the general public will most likely believe that this politician wants to see topless women.
@Chevalier: It is unfortunate what peer pressure or desperate circumstances can make someone do, especially the innocent who are easily manipulated. However, when a government starts deciding what is wrong and what is right for its people, even if some of these decisions are just (such as banning those bust contests you talked about) the society the government represents is on a road to becomin g totalitarian.
It would be nice if government were to ban porn and other things that degrade women (and sometimes men), but this isn't really possible. For one thing, no government should have the right to decide what is right or wrong for its people. And furthermore, as proven by the U.S.'s ban on alchohol in the 1920's and america's current ban on drugs, people will do what they want ilegally if they want it bad enough, or if there is enough money to be made on it.

 

The problem of it being wrong to ban something is very complex. Motives will range from endorsement of the act to respect for people's free will.

No lawmaker can escape making moral judgements. Even if we follow the doctrine of legal positivism, interpreting the law as the order of the sovereign simple as that is, and excutable and binding just because it is such an order, the sovereign will still be motivated by moral concerns. If not, there will be a utilatarian calculation of the greatest possible happiness (or benefit) of the greatest possible number of people, which is actually just another way of looking at morals. Even if one were to present the prohibition of murder or theft or generally violence as a result of social agreement, it wouldn't lose the moral character. After all, morals are such an implicit agreement according to some people, at least in some part (especially ethics rather than generic morals), if not coming from a common religion (or somewhat similar religions). It will always boil down to internal imperatives.

And yes, I would fear to live in a society obsessing with decency and putting up some extremely strict, detailed and casuistic regulations. That kind of thing would lack the necessary allowance for complicated factual situations arising in life and yes, people would be made children and I can imagine they wouldn't have much of an innate sense of decency if it were all law, enforceable by the police etc.

There's one good side of some tacky mating behaviour being allowed, though. You can easily see who does it and skip on the people. When it's all illegal, you can't really spot inclinations and you can't know what will happen if the opportunity should arise. In case of minors, however, as they are more easily impressionable and the traumas tend to stay for life, I would be in favour of some stricter standards. In exemplo, if I go to a party and there's some spin the bottle going on, I can take a look and know which girls to avoid, if I'm single. Topless being legal on beaches could have the same effect. But come on, seeing 10-12 year olds play spin the bottle is already traumatic on its own. Imagine all the female teenagers being "cool" on beaches. Especially if some of the particularly active lefties launch another freedom campaign, don't-listen-to-parents-and-priests-style.

 

I agree that all law has some sort of moral base. Nevertheless, I think that politicians should try to keep themselves as objective as possible, and not let their personal morals rule the law.
But I did not think of minors though. There probably should be some age restriction, so the politics of high school do not influence the imoressionablity of pre-teenagers and teenagers

 

I think if they made it legal but kept an age restriction like 18+ or age of consent, it could give people the right idea more successfully than a ban. People's sheepishness is very difficult to win against. If the ban is too noticeable, they will do it just for the challenge, like in Brazil.