Women in New York Have the Right to Go Topless

[Toongears]

@Kiara So can I be a feminist cuz I believe women should be equal to men?

@Drea you make some great points. I just wish the world wasn't so ugly sometimes. Whether these steps are steps in the right direction or not, I think we both can agree that it definitely is gonna take some time for a change to happen. I just hope we are alive to see it happen.

[Gabby]

@Gabby : I agree that the matter does deal with a certain amount of biologically-driven need and desire, but also believe that people are capable of self-control. While men may be sexually stimulated by seeing breasts, they are also stimulated by several other things, as are women. A cute butt, strong shoulders... there are many things that women and men view as being attractive on a biological level, but I don't think it means that we should just hide them, especially not just for a single sex.


Additionally, while it may be traditional in our society, there are many other cultures which have no visible problems with viewing breasts first as body parts and second as sexual objects. Nudists and "less-developed" (I hate using this term but don't know how to otherwise demonstrate who I am referring to) groups of people seem to get along just fine. This suggests the idea that it is the traditional belief that holds strong in our society that produces the problem in the first place, and societies are capable of change. Gay and lesbian rights, once taboo subjects, have been openly embraced. I see no reason for women's breasts to be any different, it just has to be given the chance to be changed.


Also, while feminism may have a negative connotation, it literally is "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." So you would technically be a feminist if you believe women should be treated the same as men. While we don't live in a perfect world and really never will, we can at least try, right?


Of course men can be victimized too, it does go both ways... though I still disagree that rape is based on attraction and sex. Rape is based on power and control, in most cases... though I'm sure a fair share of men have experienced sexual harrassment, just as women have. So, really, if both would experience it, why protect one more than the other (or, rather, why allow one to be exposed and not the other?) It doesn't have to be a buff woman, either, it could be any type of man or woman.

I'm certainly with you there. Hiding them isn't the way to do it. So why censor tits on a woman when the tits on the man isn't censored at all? Counterproductive, isn't it? You're censoring something that's a part of a cause and is legally protected. Well, not you, lol The video

Oh I know, I love the nudists! Lol. But, they do generally live in their own community away from everyone else. Not to say it isn't our fault--it is. We're not exactly welcoming to them. But the point is, they live in their own community to protect themselves. They know what's out there and how they're viewed. In our society, we need to bring up a better protection system for rape victims before topless woman can walk around safely. It isn't smart to do that now, with such legal protection and poor justice for the rape victim.

Again, I am not technically a feminist. That's like saying you're a socialist for believing in human rights. I believe in the equal rights for both a man and a woman. Not "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It almost sounds like a comparison. What comparison? I believe in HUMAN right - that means a man and a woman! Not for a woman to be equal to a man.

Also, I don't know if you care to read this, but here's what Wikipedia says about feminism.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.^[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."^[3]

Not going to repeat myself. I don't have a personal issue with feminism. I don't think feminists are evil. I think the intention behind the movement is positive. But I disagree with the direction feminism is heading now, and for that reason I don't base my beliefs and behaviors on feministic views. Therefore, I am not a feminist.

&& Yes, Drea, I just used a buff woman as an example the same way I would use a buff man as an example for rapists.

I would love for everyone to try, but the only way to do that is to get the people which make this world difficult to look within themselves and confront and change their issues.

Anyway, I really didn't want to get so involved in this topic. o-o
I usually keep my gender equality ideas to myself.. being I have my own unique ideas about it, not deriving from a popular movement.
So, I probably won't respond to further responses after this.
Thanks.. :3

@Kiara , I believe sexuality has nothing to do with feminism. :/

It's just plain and simply the idea that women are equal to men

Don't agree with that. Men and women are the same legally. Period.

[Kiara]

@Toongears - If you believe that, you are a feminist. I'm not sure why you're asking? Men can be feminists too, if that's why you said that.

[Drea]

@Toongears : I think a lot of people would turn heads if a man said they were a feminist XD I've seen it at school. Sad, actually. But words change meaning I guess... that and people don't fully understand them. Like those suffrage = suffering videos... :s That's a great other topic XDDD just for the lulz, though.

Anyway, you bring up good points as well. It's too bad that we have to worry about our safety all the time, both women and men, well, actually just people in general. :s Though that'd be getting off topic. Another thread, another thread.

@Gabby : Seeing as you don't want to respond any more (which is understandable) I'd just like to end on the note that perhaps you'd find yourself to be an egalitarian, that may suit you better than feminism.

[Mentalist Traceur]

And... returning to this thread (apologies for delay to anyone who sits patiently waiting for my replies - though I don't think that many, if any, do):

A woman protesting her right that she is allowed to walk around topless in NYC is "asking for it". I'm trying to say that what she is doing is in fact a huge way to gain unnecessary attention, good and bad. In this particular manner, more so the latter.

The problem is that there is a difference between doing something that attracts attention, and being ethically responsible for that attention. And there's a difference between doing something that attracts attention, and wanting that attention.

And this is why your "asking for it" comment is so problematic - even if you understand that difference - and realize that a woman going topless in NYC falls into the former categories, there are many people who either don't, or choose to ignore it, or choose to categorize a woman choosing to be topless in the latter.

By sticking to the 'asking for it' mentality and spreading it, you're propagating a set of ideas that is detrimental to all existing, and possible future, victims of rape/molestation.

I'm completely aware that rapists and molesters will still rape and molest regardless if she was fat, skinny, attractive, ugly, dressed or clothed. THAT IS THE POINT! This world is totally disgusting and unsafe.

That's fine, except if that was the point - really the point, way inside your reasoning - then you should realize that the real danger has nothing to do with the woman walking around topless. The vast majority of rape and molestation happens among acquaintances, not strangers who see you on the street somewhere, to begin with. Rape among people who don't know each other on the street or other 'public' events are rarities.

A topless woman, regardless if you believe boobs are body parts and not sex objects, is going to gain a lot more attention then the fully clothed woman or a woman in a bikini. If a woman is wearing clothes and a woman is topless, who is the pervert more likely to address? She is walking around the streets of new york, and your telling me that if she happens to stop by that disgusting pervert on the street corner, or dirty hobo looking for someone who looks "friendly", he's NOT going to want to let his hands "accidentally" grab a hold of her goodies MORE SO then if she was clothed.

Yeah, I am willing to make that claim - I think that if she were to stop by those 'stereotypical' people, she would not, realistically, be more at risk of being groped and what-not. ESPECIALLY while toplessness is such a rare event - that kind of a 'aberrant' behavior is in itself a shield - it's brazen and inherently radiates confidence - that kind of thing wards of predators very well. Not to mention the fact that while toplessness among females is rare, her being topless would attract enough attention that, like someone (I believe @Drea) stated previously in this thread, people likely to try something would be warded off by the obvious attention spotlight that causes.

I'm more so concerned with the safety of this and all other women in the world, and though what she is doing is "honorable" in some fashion, it is still dangerous.

If you're concerned about the wellbeing and safety of all the women in the world, then understand how and why the very notion of "asking for it" is harmful.

The world is a really sick place, and as much as we would like to think we can change the views of society and make this world a better place with equality for all, its not gonna start with this woman walking around topless.

You mean, just like the progress of black Americans towards getting civil rights wasn't catalyzed by an old black woman sitting on the 'white', front side of the bus? Or like how India's independence from Britain didn't start with this one guy named Gandhi who decided to do something about the problems he saw in his country? Oh wait, that's exactly how it happened.

Among all changes that have ever happened to humanity, ones that WEREN'T initiated by or catalyzed by a handful of individuals standing for what they believed are vanishingly rare.

And like @Drea said, of course she won't move the tides of social norm and cultural convention by herself - but by doing something that goes against social norm because she believes she should be able to - she is creating a ripple sociologically - she's caused, probably unintentionally, who knows how many people to talk about it and discuss the issues involved. And that's how change happens - when enough minds are changed significantly enough.

Comparing someone walking around topless in public and a protestor ranting views that could upset someone are two completely different things.

How, exactly? Tastes and algebra are two 'completely different' things, because you would be hard-pressed to find any similarities about them, that would actually be relevant in anything but the most abstract of philosophical/semantical discussions. Someone wearing their breasts out in public is doing something they feel they should have a right to do; and someone saying something in public, is them doing something they feel they should have a right to do.

I'm not looking at what this woman is doing from a protesting stand point, because I protest and volunteer at my school for countless events. I'm looking at it from a normal person's stand point.

Most people are apathetic to that which doesn't immediately concern them, and don't bother to contemplate what they 'believe' or why they do so, at all. So the normal person's standpoint is really almost always a wrong standpoint.

I don't even see the similarities in someone walking around making stupid remarks and someone walking around topless.

Both are two people doing two different actions, both of which, in general terms, there isn't an ethical reason for them to not have a right to do.

To raise an even more interesting debate, if this woman was 16 or 17, I'm sure everyone would be up right outraged and appalled.

I wouldn't be. Good for her. And I welcome anyone to bring up any arguments they have for why something so irrational and abstract as an /age/ should be a valid cutoff for giving people rights, because people thinking that that somehow makes sense is another problem in our society that I'm happy to tackle at any time.

Or how about if it was a woman who was exercising her right to walk around topless at an elementary school playground?

Oh dear god the children - they might see boobies! The horror! THE HORROR! *Ahem* Right, no, I don't see a problem with that. In fact, it would probably be a better thing if that happened than if it didn't - so that they can see from their own experience that, no, they didn't become horrendously traumatized and scarred for life by having seen some female breast, and hopefully they grow up a little more ready to counter that BS. And what Drea said.

... but there are other more organized, structured, and frankily safer, ways to go about this.

Here's the thing - if you think the woman walking around topless in NYC is somehow less safe then most women in NYC, then you don't understand the situation of most women, period. (And if you happen to be female, yes, I will still stick to that point, because I've met countless females who don't actually understand what risks are actually constantly hovering over them, and what risks are irrationally imagined bs.) That concern that you might be feeling for the safety of a woman that chooses to go topless in NYC? You should be feeling that concern for the majority of women in the world, almost all of the time - because those kind of risks are ever-present for many, many, women out there, regardless of how dressed or naked they are.

This woman appears to be making a stunt for attention more so then to "bring awareness" even though she is doing a good job at bringing awareness to a law not very many people are aware of.

Actually, I believe the woman in question was just doing her own thing, living her life, occasionally exercising a right that she had. Then someone somewhere decided to spaz the fuck out over it, and some official somewhere made the comment that "As of a court ruling here in New York in 1992, this is a recognized right of women, so we're not doing anything about it" (paraphrasing).

Now regarding Gabby's posts: If you don't wish to respond or discuss, by all means don't, but I feel that this whole feminism discussion needed certain points to be made/countered, that weren't made/countered well enough or at all, so this is for the internet as a whole so to speak, rather than for you specifically, though you're welcome to respond if you wish.

I'm an equalist. I would love seeing a society where women are actually treated like men

Again, I am not technically a feminist. I believe in the equal rights for both a man and a woman. Not "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It almost sounds like a comparison. What comparison? I believe in HUMAN right - that means a man and a woman! Not for a woman to be equal to a man.

Also, I don't know if you care to read this, but here's what Wikipedia says about feminism.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."

Not going to repeat myself. I don't have a personal issue with feminism. I don't think feminists are evil. I think the intention behind the movement is positive. But I disagree with the direction feminism is heading now, and for that reason I don't base my beliefs and behaviors on feministic views. Therefore, I am not a feminist.

Don't agree with that. Men and women are the same legally. Period.

I hope you realize that you're literally giving the definition of the fundamental (and ONLY) defining tenant of feminism, and then using that as an argument for why you're not a feminist.
You want a society where men and women get the same rights and legal treatment. In fact, that statement you made, about believing in human right, with that nuance you were trying to draw about how those rights should thought of as one and the same for both men and women, rather than trying to make the rights of one sex equal to the others, is more or less EXACTLY the sentiment that the founders of feminism as a philosophy had in mind.

The rest of your argument is more or less semantics, nitpicking out meaning that isn't there out of certain statements :

Sure, you might not believe in the advocacy for equal rights, but you don't really need to 'advocate' to be a feminist, and that's just a minor technicality-mistype on @Drea's part.

The argument you used the wikipedia quote for assumes that that one quote, interpreted in some generalized manner, is somehow the final definition of what makes a feminist. But let's suppose you actually use that quote, as the definition of what makes a feminist - that your beliefs and behaviors be based on feminism. That, in context of the wikipedia quote does not mean the same thing as "I do not base my beliefs and behaviors on feministic views". Why? Because "feministic views" are not "feminism". Feminism is one thing, and one thing only - it's the notion of human equality (in rights), regardless of sex. "Feministic", near as I can imagine, would mean pertaining-to-feminism or kinda-like-what-feminists-might-have - and in turn views seems to be my "

Which gets us to the "behavior and beliefs" being "based on" feminism. Now 'based' is one of those fundamental words with many shades of meaning, but to satisfy the meaning I think the quoted wikipedia definition (itself quoted from a dictionary) used it as, it doesn't need to be the only or even primary 'source'/foundation for your beliefs and behaviors, but rather, just something that even in the slightest, contributes to your beliefs and actions. As an example, I think that people have a right to any and all information/truth, so long as there isn't a damn good ethical-necessity justified reason against it. As a result, my beliefs and behaviors are, to some extent, based on that. Yet they are also based on a number of other things. Now, sure, if you want to go deeper, I would argue that I do everything possible to make my beliefs and behavior based upon logical thought and universal compassion, working on what to the best of my capacity to know is objectively true about the world. Everything else is in turn based on that, the above notion of right to information/truth, and my own parallel idea that indeed, all entities, in accordance to their level of sentience have the same rights, included. But based on that and other 'middle' ideas, are even more thoughts/concepts, and my beliefs and behaviors are thus, in part, ultimately somewhat influenced by the presence of what has been defined as feminism. Because if instead of thinking 'all entities in accordance to their level of sentience have the same rights', I thought 'all entities in accordance to their level of sentience have the same rights, except for the males which have [insert modifier onto those rights, regardless if positive or negative]', then that would alter my notions that are based off of that notion, and in turn, by final behaviors and beliefs would slightly differ. Even if in practice they stayed almost the same, they would no longer be based on the idea of equality of the sexes, and thus would not be feminist.

Since you say you believe in equal rights for all humans, period, then by definition you ARE a feminist, because not making a distinction between the rights for humans of one sex vs the rights of another is ALL that it takes to be a feminist - you could maybe make a technical/philosophical argument if, for some absurd reason, your belief in equal human rights for all humans did not at all effect your behavior as one would logically suppose it would, but other than that, you are a feminist, whatever odd stigma against the term you happen to foster.

Then the technicality you're trying to get at: between "human rights (where men's and women's rights are the same, by merit of them both being human)", and "equal rights for men and women (where women get the same rights as men)" is literally logically equivalent. It's like trying to say that "x and y are both whatever z is, nothing more, nothing less" and "y is everything that x is, nothing more, nothing less" aren't the same thing, where x is men's rights, y is women's rights, and z is human rights. Sure, in the latter statement, z isn't defined at all, but as far as x and y are concerned, they're exactly the same thing, completely logically equivalent - if put in terms of formal logic, both the notion you say you don't agree with, and the notion you say you believe, would lead to the conclusion that "x = y".

Now, I DO understand that there are two possible nuances you might be perceiving in the word "feminism", that might be motivating your sentiments:
1: Simply using the term feminism, since it shares a root with 'female', focuses attention in a less than ideal way - i.e. in practice it tends to indeed create a sense of comparing the two sexes, and causes people to think of human rights in terms of pegging female rights to male rights.
2: Because the term itself is typically defined as equality for the sexes (in terms of intrinsic worth, rights and opportunities, at least), it's not all-inclusive - as it says nothing about the need for equality for various other subgroups of humanity, based on other means of classification (although early feminists would argue that it demanded equality and freedom for all women, and thus was inherently against violating people's rights on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc - but that too, admittedly, leaves corner cases that might not be 'protected' under that definition either.)

So, yes, I agree that it would be more ideal (and dare I say, more feminist), to coin a term like 'equalist', or 'rightist', to refer to equality of rights for all entities in accordance to their level of sentience (I refuse to be specieist here). Or use egalitarian, as @Drea suggests. Such a term would seriously help with problem number 1 - but I must say, if you were to actually begin to discuss a lack of equality (whether rights, opportunities, personal worth in the eyes of society, etc) among some people, you'd find that, by and large, you couldn't help but come back to comparing the rights/opportunities/social-worth of males to that of females - because even though many minorities have it far worse than women nowadays, there is still inequality based on sex around - quite a lot of it. And yes, such a term would solve problem number 2 - in that it would unambiguously refer to all relevant forms of equality, of all being that should have such equality.

But one thing you should note, is that even if you coined such a term, and it gained traction, by the current definition of feminism, you would still be a feminist. Because both problems are problems of practical use of the word feminism, but not problems of principle with its definition. Being for equal human rights/opportunities/worth, or better yet equal entity rights/opportunities/worth in-accordance-to-their-level-of-sentience, doesn't make you not feminist - it merely makes you something more, but feminism is by definition a subset of whatever it is that it makes you.

I usually keep my gender equality ideas to myself.. being I have my own unique ideas about it, not deriving from a popular movement.

I personally don't get why you wouldn't want to share your ideas, if they aren't derived from a popular movement, but I suppose to each their own.

That's like saying you're a socialist for believing in human rights.

This needs it's own dissection: Not really. Last I checked, socialism is about society being responsible as a whole for providing certain goods/services for everyone - hell, socialism isn't even about human rights at all, though human rights contemplation CAN lead to the conclusion that socialism is the way to go) since we're being anal about definitions here: it's an economics theory/model. So no, it is not at all like saying you're a socialist for believing in human rights. It is like saying that you're a feminist for believing in human rights (unless of course you think there is a difference between how 'human' males and females are). Cuz, you know, you are. But I'm not actually demonstrating to you the folly of your analogy by restating the claim you were trying to counter by making said analogy, so here's another, closer to the point:

It's like saying you're a socialist if you're a communist. (Hint: This is true. Socialism is the notion that it is better for society as a whole to own the means of production, rather than for private enterprise to do so. Communism is the same thing, but with the additional stipulation that there isn't any formal government, such that the people govern themselves)

It's also like saying something is a rectangle, if it's a square. (a square is a rectangle, with the extra stipulation that all sides are equal in length)

I could go on. The point is, you seem to not get that feminism is about one thing: not having any inequality in terms of rights/opportunities/worth-as-a-human-being based on sex - and that if you're about not having any inequality in terms of rights/opportunities/worth-as-a-human-being for all humans, period, then that includes feminism.

Feminism is not being the kind of people you happened to encounter at your college's feminist gatherings, certainly. The thing you have to keep in mind is that the vast majority of human beings are horribly, horribly, wrong. Almost all the time, about almost everything. Now, they might do/think the right (whatever your definition of right here is) things, but most likely, they aren't doing/thinking those things for the right reasons. This being the case because most human beings are irrational (in that they fail to catch the countless little biases/reasoning-fails that the human brain tends to default to during thinking), they don't go out of their way to make sure what they believe is true actually is true, and they don't spend enough time contemplating their ideas to make sure they're logically compatible with each other, let alone consistent with objective, external reality.

As a result, I don't care WHAT gathering you go to, unless that gathering is of a group whose entry requirements include a psychological exam that evaluates how much a person has overcome those things, I will still with full confidence say that the majority of people people at any given gathering are most likely going to not fully and thoroughly understand the cause/movement/ideology they're gathering in support of, let alone all the repercussions thereof. INCLUDING the people running the damn thing.

So yes, many, in fact most, modern feminists might forget the spirit of what feminism was really about to begin with, might ignore the fact that certain problems that they like to wax rhetoric about, or call symptoms of a social conspiracy to uphold a patriarchal society, actually affect and harm males too, etc. But that's not real feminism, and they are a detriment to the world like any other sexist, and an insult to what feminism actually is.

In our society, we need to bring up a better protection system for rape victims before topless woman can walk around safely. It isn't smart to do that now, with such legal protection and poor justice for the rape victim.

I agree that that would be ideal, although I don't really think it is likely to happen that way. Because in order for legal protection and justice system reform towards more ethical treatment and results for rape victims to happen, enough people have to understand sexuality, rape, human nature and psychology, etc, enough to understand how horribly damaging rape is, and how horribly unpleasant the legal process is for rape victims. Until enough people realize that, there won't be enough sociological pressure (whether in the form of public protests/lobbying, or in the form of politicians in the system working to improve the situation) on the legal systems of most countries to create said justice system reforms and a better protection system for rape victims, etc. Things like women being able to freely walk around with breasts revealed seems to me like it could be a minor step in the right direction, as forcing society to accept that would hopefully force some people to reconsider their biases about sexuality, etc, at least a little.

Realistically, though, the two things are most likely going to be unrelated - since typically such changes happen over the course of decades, it's likely that one such change would happen, and by the time the other one was starting to happen, the people most capable of affecting or opposing the latter change, will not be the same people that were around when the former happened.

But in either case, I fail to see why the two need to be dependent. I certainly agree with you that a better protection system for rape victims and the like is very important - and, given limited time and effort, it would be of greater ethical import to take care of that, than the right to go topless. But your statement seems to suggest that the two are somehow connected - I.e. that the right to go topless is going to cause more rapes, so there should be better protection for rape victims first. I've made a handful of arguments in this thread already as to why that isn't likely to be the case, in my opinion. And if that's not your point, then I fail to see how the absence of one precludes the other.

[Gabby]

@Mentalist Traceur Thank you for your responses, however, I no longer wish to be apart of this thread. Please stop quoting me. I want nothing to do with this thread if you're commenting my beliefs. They weren't supposed to be up for comment, so leave them alone. The only reason why I mentioned them in the first place is because I felt comfortable enough with the community at the time to accept me for who I was.

I have no doubt that I am not a feminist. Everything said here made me realize it more. Please respect that and leave me alone.

Also, while the internet is a fantastic place to debate/discuss, it isn't always the best place to explain. Things like this need to be determined through my behavior. If you truly know the person I am off site - real life and the years I've been active online - there would be no need for me to explain. Now, I understand some people here consider themselves feminist and that is fine. I respect the feminists of this community equally. However, I am not a feminist, so why isn't that fine? Why must you disrespect me by drawing this topic out? Accept it and move on; stop dissecting, stop rationalizing, stop bringing logic into what I say.

If a homosexual dated a girl/guy while she/he was unsure, do you ask him/her "why are you gay? You have to like woman/man because you've been with one" and you shove it down their throat insisting they're wrong. I hope not, because it's plain disrespectful to do to someone just because you don't know them. Well guess what, you don't know me well enough to tell me who I am and who I'm not. I am who I am and it is not up for discussion. I'm not changing who I am.

Thank you @Neon <3 I appreciated that thanks.