[Mrs. Braverman defends a junior high school's sexist dress code that bans certain kinds of girls' pants that are "too tight."]
"Why should we have to dress differently just because the boys are distracted?" runs the tired yet familiar line from parents and teens. "Let them just control themselves."
[...]
Yes, everyone needs to learn self-control. But basic human nature can't be changed. It boils down to a simple idea that can't be repeated often enough. "If you don't want to be treated like an object, don't dress like one." It's not sexism; it's reality.
[...]
When they get married, our daughters won't want their husbands staring at another woman in those pants. And their husbands won't want another man staring at their wife.
Junior High isn't too early to teach this lesson and to encourage a sense of self among males and females that reflects character and not physicality. Let's get the "too tight" pants, "too short" skirts, "too provocative" blouses out of the way so that their true beauty can shine through and the serious learning can occur.
41 comments
I for one fully support Mrs Braverman's point, and think the introduction of compulsory hijab-wearing be introduced.
Though I would question what a woman is doing "preaching" in a public place, does her owner/husband know?
I kind of sort of agree with this. I believe kids should wear age appropriate clothing, but their shouldn't be different standards for boys and girls. After all a male in tight jeans can be just as distracting to us females, if not more so.
Objects can dress themselves?
If you don't want your husband to stare at pretty women, marry a blind man.
What about women staring at men in tight pants, and wives not wanting other women staring at their husbands?
Let's get the provocative pants, shirts and sweaters away from Junior High boys, so that their true beauty can shine through too.
Here's a clue, Sparky: Boys are going to be looking at girls no matter what they wear. I'm currently reading a book about a man growing up in Victorian England, and when he was a teenager, he'd get an erection just by seeing a woman's calf.
Boys will get excited by seeing girls and women, that's just the way it works. If you'd stop insisting that masturbation is wrong, then they'd have an outlet to blow off some of that sexual tension.
Unless you dress women in burkas, there will always be someone looking. And no, I'm not suggesting that's what we should do.
and I've read the usual whining and moaning about how men are violent by nature (or "by Gob's will) and therefore beating their spouses or children is just swell. It's just basic human nature.
It's amazing how many times basic human nature turns out to be basically stupid and violent, and really nothing more than a defence of gruesome misbehavior.
"If you don't want to be treated like an object, don't dress like one."
So you're telling me that women are more likely to be treated as objects in France or Italy than they are in Iran or Saudi Arabia?
When they get married, our daughters won't want their husbands staring at another woman in those pants. And their husbands won't want another man staring at their wife.
School is supposed to be an education for later life. If they don't learn self-control at school, how are they going control themselves when they're married?
(*sigh *)
...time to wheel out those two simple - but argument-annihilating - words again:
Self Control.
Self Control. You either have it, or you don't. There is NO 'but'. What's more natural in humans than to be normal, decent, civilised, SANE people? Question that, and you admit that you have no right to exist in human society. That's why jails exist.
Rapists go to those jails (preferably the only way they can leave such, is in a box, such is their subhumanity, and why they should be kept away from sane & superior human civilisation), those with Self Control live free as birds. Pretty simple maths, really.
Look, all men see beautiful women and get attracted and even aroused. However, those of us who are in control of ourselves find ways to deal with our sexual energy, either through masturbation or mind-blowing sex with our significant other.
This thought of "boys and men can't look at pretty women or else they'll commit sin" thing is just the religious right being afraid of their own sexuality. And because they're afraid of sex, they think that everyone else should be, too.
Frankly, I'd love it if men were staring at my wife, as long as they don't touch.
Of course, it's ok for high school boy to prance about in front of bleachers full of girls in buttocks-defining wrestling gear, swim trunks, football pants, net shirts, etc.
Yes, everyone needs to learn self-control. But basic human nature can't be changed.
Well done... you just said that boys (and the men they grow into) cannot control themselves.
When do we lock them up for safety?
Well since the perverse objectification of women has already been extensively covered I'd like to highlight that Mrs. Braverman seems to be of the opinion that every Y chomosome comes with a debilitating case of ADD. As such, we'll also have to severely restrict any bright flashing lights, windows with a view outdoors, and sudden noises in the classroom. If a woman in tight jeans were enough to distract an entire room of men from what they're supposed to be doing human civilation wouldn't have progressed far enough to actually manufacture those jeans.
Come on, if men were that helpless you could destroy the world by air-bombing Playboy and Penthouse magazines across any populated area.
@ SpukiKitty
Emuna Braverman is a woman, but the point absolutely still stands.
While overstated, the opinion isn't outrageous. The point is, distractions interfere with learning. I went to an all boy's college prep school. If the student body had included pretty girls I would probably have flunked everything, including lunch period.
I love the brush off here. "Yes, yes, I suppose boys COULD learn to control themselves, but I'd still rather blame the evil women for tempting them with a gander of ankle."
Oh, and maybe it's because I'm an evil, promiscuous gay, but I don't give two fucks if my partner stares at other men. Nothing wrong with looking or a little innocent flirting. He loves me, I love him, that is what matters.
RE-EDITED TO CORRECT THE OP'S GENDER:
Uh, Ms. Enema Cowardlygal; What about the gals who oogle boys crotch-bulges & cute apricot guy-tushies?
the tired yet familiar line ... "Let them just control themselves.
It's tired and familiar because we have to keep telling fundies like you that men are not helpless drooling morons, who can't keep it in their pants, whenever a woman wearing anything less than a burqa walks by.
(OP)
"And their husbands won't want another man staring at their wife."
What makes you so sure of that? In my case, the other man would be doing a bit more than staring .
I swear, it's like these people want to live in ancient times where women and their libidos were commodities to be traded between men. *facepalm*
The dress code itself doesn't sound that bad, but the quote here is very... It's got a nagging feeling of something not being right, and I can't place my finger on it. Oh wait:
"If you don't want to be treated like an object, don't dress like one." It's not sexism; it's reality.
There's the problem!
While I agree with the commentariat that male self-control is what's needed, there's a bit of miscommunication going on here. We believe that self-control means refraining from harassment and open lewdness, while to fundies, any kind of sexuality outside of procreative, joyless intercourse is wrong. So even a stray glance or a lustful thought, let alone *gasp* relieveing oneself in private is a sin. It's ass backward.
Mmmhmm. And the guys are going to be discouraged from wearing tank tops and skinny jeans and baseball pants and cycling shorts and muscle shirts and the like, I spose. No? Oh, right, only girls are the slut baskets. Because if your blouse is "too provocative" you can't be truly beautiful, you're just a slut puppy.
How does one dress like an object, is what I wanna know. Unless you're wearing a lampshade on your head or have decorative cushions sewn onto your body most folks look pretty people-ish.
When they get married, our daughters won't want their husbands staring at another woman in those pants. And their husbands won't want another man staring at their wife.
Except for us polyamorists. And those swinger types.
On a more serious note: what if your daughters don't want to get married? What if they marry other women? Why do you Stepford-Wife-Wannabes always forget about those women?
Protip, Emmy, some people actually get a kick from seeing people finding their significant other attractive.
Of course, these people tend to be much more secure in their relationship than you appear to be.
Girls get distracted too, and basic human nature goes both ways (and other directions too).
Objects have tight pants? Also, isn't a boy in tight pants as much of an object as a girl in tight pants is?
One learns quick enough that you can't stop anyone from looking at other people, regardless of gender. Women stare too, ya know. You ought to know, as you're a Mrs.
What about that sense of self among males and females that reflect character, when it comes to men's dress code?
Besides, if you get the pants, the skirt and the blouses out of the way, aren't they naked?
“Yes, everyone needs to learn self-control. But basic human nature can't be changed. It boils down to a simple idea that can't be repeated often enough. "If you don't want to be treated like an object, don't dress like one." It's not sexism; it's reality.”
So, the Faithful get upset at the idea that humans are animals. That we’re classified as apes. We’re not, they insist, we’re in the Image of Gawd.
But at the same time, boys aren’t REALLY responsible for lusting after or raping women, because they just can’t control their basic urges. Girls bear the responsibility for male instincts.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.