Thursday, August 27, 2015

Bare Naked Ladies and Other Inequalities

August 26, 1920 was the day that women finally won the right to vote. Fast-forward 95 years to August 26, 2015, now there are some women in NYC who are fighting for the walk around topless. Well, what can I say, somewhere along the long road to Equality, some women have veered off into a swamp.

For generations, women in the US have fought for the same rights and privileges afforded to men in education, business, finances and politics. By most reasonable accounts, women have made great strides towards equality. In education, women now comprise more than 50% of enrollment in colleges and universities. There are certainly more female executives, scientists, doctors, and business owners than there have ever been in human history. Women have more opportunities in almost every field that they want to pursue including the military's elite fighting forces. Just last week, two women completed the rigorous 61-day/3-phase program of endurance and survival training through woods, mountains and swamps that only half the men who enter complete. No grading on a curve either.

A major part of this fight has been not be thought merely as sex objects or the sum total of our lady-parts. And I can say with some authority that the right to go topless in public was never really one of the issues very high on the long list of grievances. I can say with even more authority that it wasn't even on the list. But here we are...GoTopless Day has arrived. [Oops, sorry, it was last weekend. Sorry, guys, I forgot to send the memo...] You may not know this, but in NYC going topless in public is not against the law as long as there is an artistic element. So it being legal and all, we hosted GoTopless Day, a national protest where women took off their tops and protested for the right to go topless. And Lord help the man who enjoyed the view because that's sexist and misogynist (and any other words they can think of).

I don't have a problem with nudity. If a woman wants to walk around without a top on, whatevs. But it's boring, self-indulgent, and superficial when there are women in the world who are not allowed to learn to drive or read, or when 14 years old girls are used as human incendiary devices for Boko Haram terrorists. But then again, maybe it is a sign that American woman have finally achieved equality in the big stuff.

On a related topic:This brings me to Times Square famously deemed the "Crossroad of the World". It took 20 years to clean up the area and create a family-friendly Disney-fied Main Street from what was once filled with drug dealers, prostitutes, strip clubs and X-rated movie theatres. It started during the Guiliani years and the Bloomberg years just made it more friendly. The area is teeming with tourists now. But since our present Adminstration has taken over, it has devolved into some kind of weird, alternate universe/Twilight Zone of giant matted Big Birds, multiple Mickey Mice, Super Heroes, and, worst of all, nearly naked women hawking themselves as photo opportunities for money. It has become a place where one cannot take children again. And worst, the many law firms and other similar legitimate businesses who have offices in the ares are moving out in droves because it is has become embarrassing for them. How can you meet with clients when they have to first walk through a see of aggressive naked women hawking their bare naked selves for money? Mayor de Blasio has finally noticed between trips to Italy and gym work-outs and vows to "do something".

Unrelated Topic: So you know all about the "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" for reading list and conservative speakers on college campuses these day. Students just shouldn't be confronted with any kind of conservative ideas like speeches from Ayaan Hirsi Ali who might say something that challenge their liberal indocrination. Well, a funny thing happened on the way to that indoctrination...Christian students at Duke University are refusing to read "Fun Home", a novel and Tony-award winning play about a young lesbian's coming of age and sexual identity because it goes against their moral and religious beliefs. One would think that they had asked for a safe space or something with all the flack over this. How dare these students not want to expand their minds and go outside of their "comfort zone"!! How anti-intellectual of them! Why are they even bother to go to college. Oh, the irony...

Comments are appreciated and hey, no mention of Hillary!! Well, I did just there, but I won't mention Hillary again. Oops.

**Okay, if you must see, here is a video of Times Square...LINK - WARNING - DO NOT OPEN IF YOU AT WORK or IF THERE ARE CHILDREN PRESENT.


AndrewPrice said...

Bev, The issues in those other places are hard... and dangerous. Best to worry about made-up oppression at home, where no one will try to kill you or maim you and where you have virtually unlimited rights to whine about your lack of rights.

In terms of letting women go topless, I offer a compromise. We will let some women go topless... the hotties. ;-)

In all seriousness, this really is what happens after a movement gets what it wants. Women basically have equality today, or at least as much as they want without giving up their double-standards and gender-based privileges. Hence, the vast majority of women have stopped caring about these issues. Those womyn who are left fighting the fight are the freaks... the ones who wish reality was different and who want to make the world pay for their inadequacies. Others are female Trumps, i.e. clowns, who see the movement as a great way to jerk off their egos by pushing for ridiculous attention-getting demands.

I have no respect for these chicks.

AndrewPrice said...

Ok... I watched the video and I have some thoughts.

1. I guess naked does not necessary equate to attractive.

2. It's false advertising to claim to be naked and then to wear cloth over your junk.

3. What I wouldn't give to see a rumble between the "naked" girls and the fake superhero shakedown artists.

4. There were two people in a horse costume. Wha???

5. OMG... that's Chelsea Clinton in the yellow!

Kit said...

re Fun Home,

First, how dare you link to Salon, I lose 10 brain cells every time I visit that site. The writers at that site are incapable of imagining that anyone they disagree with is capable of having an argument. The site should be renamed Strawman, because that is their favorite mode of "debate".

Slate and Guardian seem like brilliant repositories of intellectual thought in comparison.

Second, if that was a group of left-wing feminist complaining about some classic 19th-century work because it promoted "patriarchy bla-bla-bla" they would be siding with her.

Kit said...

Ok, that first point needed a :).

Kit said...

"The area is teeming with tourists now. But since our present Adminstration has taken over, it has devolved into some kind of weird, alternate universe/Twilight Zone of giant matted Big Birds, multiple Mickey Mice, Super Heroes, and, worst of all, nearly naked women hawking themselves as photo opportunities for money."

You forgot anti-semitic Elmo. (NSFW warning for Link)

LL said...

I'm going to put myself out and volunteer here on this blog. I will become the judge of whether NY women can parade around topless or not, and will provide a free certificate of authorization. Not unlike a cab medallion. You heard it here first and you've seen what I'm willing to do in this, the Year of the Woman.

Anthony said...

I'm sure businessmen prefer to save 'the sea of aggressive naked women hawking their bared naked selves for money' for the celebratory strip club party after the deals are signed :). Seriously, I'm kind of amazed that de Blasio is allowing public nudity to come back.

The Duke University controversy seems overblown. Its a recommended list, not a required list. When I was a freshman I read the entire list but when I got to college I found that very few had bothered to read anything on the list and most had read nothing. The college didn't really care, it just made for very short conversations about said books.

With Duke, one student made a big, very public deal out of not reading the book and called it porn because it had a couple scenes of sex (I'm pretty sure sex is required by law in coming of age novels, even graphic novels), which strikes me as a stretch. Then some liberal writers predictably attacked said student (who claims lots of people have e-mailed him in secret) for small mindedness. Just another day of the fringes playing off each other.

Anonymous said...

L.L. - be careful what you volunteer for! :) I fully support public toplessness in theory.However I know better than to click on that link because the women who want to go topless in public are never the ones you want to see. I've had this idea for some time now and I want to see what you all think.
In this great country of ours it is everybody's right to go to the beach. The vast majority of us don't look like models. However, what you wear at the beach is another matter. I've long felt that every public beach should have a Beach Board. The purpose of said board would be thus. If a woman wants to wear a bikini at the beach she has to appear in front of the Beach Board in said bikini and apply for a permit. No permit, no bikini privileges. If you get caught on the beach in a bikini with no permit then beach Dalton will walk your ass off the beach. You can't come back unless you have A; reapplied and gotten a permit(this one is almost impossible to do in one summer) B; covered yourself in a one piece AND shown proof that you've paid the fine. Oh yes, there will be a fine. Same thing for men. If you want to take your shirt off at the beach you have to appear in front of the Beach Board and get a permit. No permit and you know the drill.This was inspired by cumulative hours spent in the checkout line at the grocery store surrounded by the National Enquirer. There are a lot of people who think that famous and attractive are the same thing.

tryanmax said...

Okay, I'm gonna go here... The reason those girls are walking around naked* is because no one would look at them otherwise. Can you say "butterface"?

[*not really naked]

tryanmax said...

GT - You ever notice how the fat guys at the beach are always wearing longer swim trunks? It's like they get the need to cover up, but they can't figure out what to cover. Hey man, this -- gestures towards knees -- is not the problem.

Anonymous said...

Andrew; this is an old joke but I thought of it because of your two guys in a horse suit comment. Here goes. Two guys are going to a halloween party in a cow suit. One guy's in the front the other's in the back. They're late so they take a short cut through a field. In so doing they attract the attention of a bull, who gives a lustful bellow and comes running. "What are we gonna do?!" screams the guy in the back part of the suit. "I don't know about you," says the guy in the front, "but I'm gonna stand here ad eat some grass."
In cyberspace no one can hear you boo, :)

tryanmax said...

Bev, haven't you heard? It's not just the denied right to go topless that's holding women back. Elissa Strauss at The Weak (did I spell that right?) has identified the real affront to women's dignity as "boyfriend jeans." You see, labeling clothing for women as "boyfriend" implies that women only have the right to wear baggy clothes once they have secured a mate. Plus, it implies that women should be young, straight, and smaller than men. So on that note, I'm going to call for an end to tampons, as they imply that women should be young, fertile, and have vaginas.

Anonymous said...

Tryanmax - you're absolutely right. It's like they think if they compensate for the top by covering the bottom it's ok. Man, your legs ain't the problem!

Anonymous said...

Tryanmax: I get your point but think of the consequences. An end to tampons would be too awful to contemplate.

BevfromNYC said...

Yeah, the tampon thing has arrived too...LINK

At least the girl claims she did it for homeless women who do not have access to tampons.

Oh, and just in case you all thought nudity was just for the "ladies". Yesterday, LINK But that's art, right?? See men have to take over everything!

BevfromNYC said...

Kit - I am sorry about linking to the Salon article, but it was deliciously snarky and hypocritical. I promise that next time I will post a trigger warning and directions to the nearest safe space for you.. ;-P

BevfromNYC said...

LL - I will give your name to the authorities....who at this very moment are choosing a volunteer team.

Speaking of which, Police Commish Bratton, after removing 2/3 of the police roaming Times Square last year, has now decided to reinstate the patrol. I think there is a line around the block for volunteers.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - Yeah, I get the strip club analogy, but that is by choice. If I am going to an office to conduct business, I do not want to wade through a sea of bare naked ladies and now gents to get there just like I had to do 25 years ago just to get to the train station.

BevfromNYC said...

GypsyT and Tryanmax - OMG! Not boyfriend jeans too??? When will this madness end???? When will men learn to stop being misogynists who make us wear clothes because they can't control themselves?

Oh, and I kind of agree about the bathing trunks situation with men. But what is worse is the Speedo situation. Btw, I see photos of inappropriately dresses people at Walmart accompanied by snooty comments about "the low class WalMart shopper". But the snooty commenters need to ride the NYC subway for a few hours and they would see the same kind of folks riding the rails too...

Kit said...


re Wal-Mart, slightly off-topic,

Notice that the people who attack Wal-Mart for it's low-class shoppers are often the same people who attack it for preying on the poor?

Kit said...

"I am sorry about linking to the Salon article, but it was deliciously snarky and hypocritical. I promise that next time I will post a trigger warning and directions to the nearest safe space for you.. ;-P"


You should. Salon needs plenty of trigger warnings. :-)

BevfromNYC said...

Kit...yes, I do. In NYC they will not allow any Walmart because it would hurt all the small businesses and because of the poor wages. Yet, K-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc. big chain stores are all welcomed. Oh, yeah, did I say that Walmart is non-union? Oh, yeah, but that's not why the City Counsel and the Mayor don't want Walmart's because they keep the poor people poor.

Kit said...


Just read the link: LINK

The nudist's response to people being disgusted by public nudity was pure a-hole: "If you are looking for Disneyland, then you are in the wrong state. Times Square is a PUBLIC SPACE. And in New York City, being topless in public is LEGAL."

Uhm… the reason people don't like seeing nudity there is because it is a public space, jackass.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Bev, and GypsyTyger,

The boyfriend jeans thing explains something I've been seeing. Whenever "feminists" decide that they don't want to wear something because it's too much effort compared to sweatpants, berkenstocks and not showering, they attack it as enslaving women in one form or another. I suspect their goal is to stop the competition form wearing whatever it is.

Up pop a succession of quack doctors to tell us how this trend is killing women blah blah blah. This is followed by the MSM feminists writing about how horrible it is that the men who run the fashion industry force women to wear this stuff, and how male bosses require it. Then the hairy-legged fugly squad shows up and whines about Barbie wearing whatever it is and how Disney shows it and how this is brainwashing little girls who apparently are too delicate to develop their own judgments... and should be playing with boy toys anyways!! Won't someone think of the little girls!!

Well, starting about a week ago, I started seeing all these articles appearing suddenly all over the leftist feminist pages about boyfriend jeans and skinny jeans hurting women medically. They crush your organs and make your bones spin! They cause cancer! They attract men... blech!! Rape rape rape!! Oh my!

Now I get it. This is phase one of the next "I'm not wearing that, I'm staying in my sweatpants" feminist rant.

AndrewPrice said...

OT: I've been following this Ashley Madison thing quite closely. It's fascinating. The most recent bit of interesting information is this. The company claims to have had almost 32 accounts from male users. There is no reason to doubt that.

They also claim to have almost six million accounts from women. But an analysis of the hacked data has revealed that only around 10,000 accounts belonging to women ever showed ANY activity. The rest appear to be fake accounts set up by the company on its own servers using a robot.

So it looks like 31 million men paid to talk to 10,000 men. Hence, the claims of fraud.

BevfromNYC said...

None of this is not without precedent. Women refused to wear corsets at the turn of the century (and at other times in history too...oddly at the turn of pretty much every century in which they have worn corsets...interesting, but I digress) In the 1920's women shed their tight fitting Edwardian corsetry for the bobbed hair/flat-chested boyish look...just as they were passing the 19th Amendment. This is no different really except as I have explained, there really are no real grievances left, so we have to make them up with hidden unconscious gender discrimination. Speaking for gender issues, Target announced last week that it will no longer separate clothing and toys by gender and all of those discriminating/gender exclusive signs will be coming down.

tryanmax said...

Marathoners are just crazy at the baseline, so whatevs. I personally challenge the notion that "raising awareness" is separate from actually doing things for others. I know, taking hygiene products to the homeless shelter doesn't draw crowds and cameras. But from the article, it sounds like Ms. Gandhi just up and decided that the patriarchy® invented the idea that unstopped bleeding is a bad thing and made up a socially conscious justification afterwards.

I don't want to just cast aspersions. I found that she was running to raise money for breast cancer research — which credits her standing social consciousness, but rather cuts against the menstrual issue being her reason for running in the first place.

So now, I see Ms. Gandhi is partnering* with a company (that existed prior to her run) that sells expensive menstrual underwear and sends part of the profits to a charity (that also existed before the run) that trains women in Africa to sew and sell reusable pads. In any case, I'm glad that Ms. Gandhi now has the opportunity to work with organizations that directly address an issue that has been so very important to her since about 8 AM on April 26 of this year.

So, in short, admirable cause, but let's not pretend the stunt was something it was not.

[*acting as an unpaid spokeswoman]

BevfromNYC said...

"If you are looking for Disneyland, then you are in the wrong state. Times Square is a PUBLIC SPACE. And in New York City, being topless in public is LEGAL."

See, Kit, this is what drove tourists away the last time. And it's bad enough that it is legal to go topless, but now it's is legal to sell and smoke pot (but not cigarettes,,,go figure) because Mayor de Blasio thinks those that isn't worthy of the time to worry about. It's not going to take much effort for the criminal element to move back in. They already have...each one of those naked ladies has a "keeper/artist" who takes his cut...

tryanmax said...

Bev, here's the thing that fashion feminists don't get:

In its time, the corseted look was considered sexy. Then the empire waist was sexy. Then the flapper look was sexy. Then long dresses were sexy. Then skirt suits were sexy. Then thin waists and poodle skirts were sexy. Then the mod and hippie looks were sexy. Then the clean look was sexy. Then athletic wear was sexy. Then babydoll dresses and denim were sexy. Then scenesters were sexy.

The point is, it doesn't matter what women are wearing, men will see them and women will want to be seen as sexy. But certain things will never be sexy. Namely, looking like you don't give a crap.

As far as wanting to dress comfortably goes, all the fashion experts agree, the best look is the look that fits. If you're squeezing into those jeans that don't fit because you think they make you look sexy, you are wrong.

Also, yoga pants. Now both your butt and my eyes are comfy.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This => "But certain things will never be sexy. Namely, looking like you don't give a crap." is the very point behind what these feminists are pushing. They want the world to be different so that not giving a crap is considered just as sexy as everything else. That world will never exist* because people have too much self respect and because they want to attract other people not repel them.

As for corsets, BTW, they are back in a HUGE way because celebrities have been using them for supposedly effortless shape training.

* Outside of white trash land, where laziness is King and meth is Queen. There, not giving a crap is considered the norm. Hence flip flops at weddings, Daisy Dukes at church, camo everything, and offensive slogans on shirt is the norm.

BevfromNYC said...

BTW Tryanmax - what you just described is the "Theory of the Shifting Erogenous Zone". Skirts go up, skirts go down, waistline shift, belly buttons exposed/covered up, backs exposed/backs covered up, breasts exposed/covered see where I'm going with this. Basically, once one uncovers a body part, it loses it's cover it up...and it becomes provocative not show it on the hopes of getting secret peek.

What we have seen in the last 20 years is a gradual shift to less and less clothing to the point that to be notices, women literally have to walk around naked to get noticed. Which also means that they are boring because once you see one naked body it's like anything else...not interesting or provocative. The shift to covering up has begun.

Koshcat said...

Free the Nipple!

tryanmax said...

Another thing feminists seem to forget -- assuming they reject religion® and philosophy® -- is that we are fundamentally biological organisms with only two real objectives: stay alive and reproduce. This thing that we call "civilization" is just our species' response to those directives. Feminism seems to regard reproduction especially, but also the living (comfortably or otherwise) bit, not just as a side-effect of civilization, but one in need of serious scrutiny, like a toxic emission.

® "Religion" and "Philosophy" are registered trademarks of The Patriarchy, LLC.

BevfromNYC said...

® "Religion" and "Philosophy" are registered trademarks of The Patriarchy, LLC.

HAH!!!! We women of the world knew this was true!!! At our super secret meetings in bathrooms, spas, hair/nail salons and Department Store dressing rooms, we have tried to come up with the proo.....oops, I have said too much.

Anyway - Biology, schmiology - The entire world is an artificial social construct devised by white anglo saxon men to enslave all who are "the other" and "them"! Hah!!!

BevfromNYC said...

BTW - a giant LOL to this - "® "Religion" and "Philosophy" are registered trademarks of The Patriarchy, LLC."

tryanmax said...

Uh oh. It gets worse. iPhone 6 is sexist. Because:
1. It's too big to fit in a woman's pocket. And purses were invented by The Patriarchy®
2. Putting them on your face gets makeup on the screen. And it's soooo embarrassing to wipe it off!
3. The poorly designed case rips out hair. This happens to men, too, but SHUDDUP!
4. The vibrate function is useless to women because they keep their phones in their purses. You already forgot #1 like you were supposed to, right?
5. Pixels and gigabytes are, like, soooo technical! I just want something fun! I wish I had made up that last point, but it's actually from the linked article.

BevfromNYC said...

Or as I say it...1st world problems in a nutshell.

Dear Lord, really, how do woman like this function? I thought it had to be a parody...but it isn't. I fear for these children when some real catastrophe happens. They seriously will not know what to do and ironically will turn to those manly men that they so despise to save them.

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Wow. If you want to know what a sexist iPhone 6 would look like, it would need to do one or more of the following:

1. Be shaped like a penis.

2. Require you to scan your penis before unlocking.

3. It would call female users "honey" and Siri would tell them "don't worry your pretty little head about it" to their questions.

4. It would rate female users by looks and use different programming accordingly.

5. The female version would have only 66% of the memory of the male ver... uh, nothing to see here folks. Move along.


BevfromNYC said...

I love all of these, but I particularly love #3! I have actually made Siri angry by my questions. Maybe it was because I am a woman and she was jealous.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Really? That's fantastic! LOL! :)

Speaking of an angry Siri, there was a thing going around that apparently was true (unlike the usual "this is really true!" stuff) that if you asked Siri to divide by zero, it would call 911. Whoops.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I read this article a few months ago, so a friend with an IPhone and I tried it out. It worked and was hysterical! LINK

Post a Comment