Women's right to go topless

Interestingly, I did the exact same thing when I was her age. Right on the front lawn of McGill University. It was a hot day in summer - the regular session was over, and I was pretty much alone on the lawn - and I decided to remove my shirt to tan my back. So I was laying front down on the lawn, resting my head on my arms, and security came up and told me I couldn't do that, I had to put my top back on. That would have been '86 or '87. I didn't spearhead a movement. I just put my top back on and probably went home. But I had certainly felt the injustice of that before. It wasn't any new revelation for me.

The restriction against women is utterly unconscionable and should not be tolerated.

My only experience with toplessness was in Greece, where all the women, of many nationalities, ages and body types, went topless. I recall a group of Greek teenage boys standing near the beach, arguing, completely ignoring all the topless women mere feet away. (Contrasted with the table of German men drinking at a nearby bar, who I noticed when I went to shower off the salt water, and I realized I was giving them a show.)

But yes; the teenage boys regarded bare-breasted women with the same bland indifference as if they were fully clothed. I mean, if your teenage boys are behaving properly, your culture is doing something right. 

However, toplessness is in sharp decline among younger women in France. Paris Plage doesn't allow topless sunbathing on the improvised "beaches" along the banks of the Seine. Evidently many young women see toplessness no longer so much as exercising the right to do what they want with their bodies, and more as a mandatory display of perfection (i.e. the endless articles in women's magazines about getting one's body in shape for te beach).

One article out of many: http://digitaljournal.com/article/295355

But what is happening in France is NOT a campaign, just young women being fed up with being oversexualised at the beach. I don't think most of them would put up with a "decency" campaign.

A male friend was ticketed a few decades back in Outremont for cycling without a shirt... Old bylaw. There are many of those on the books.

Unionist wrote:

...It is still far more important for women to have marketable body images than for men. And that includes the sex/beauty show connotations of breasts. Notwithstanding any of the gains in the movement for women's equality, patriarchy is alive and well and fighting back.

Did you ever doubt that? But at least the fashion and beauty industries are working hard toward levelling the playing field by instilling in men the same myriad of doubts about their bodies and appearance that women have suffered under for years. Welcome to the brave new world where it just won't be enough for you to be rich and fit, you'll have to encapsulate a certain sort of male beauty as well. You guys have so much to look forward to.

mark_alfred wrote:

... To digress for a second, it does seem too that men have very little freedom in choice of attire.  In the 70s and 80s, bathing suits could be Speedos or shorts, and either was acceptable.  Shorts could be quite short, or longer.  Shirts could be colourful, or plain.  Now, however, there's very little colour, never Speedos, and shorts typically only reveal shins (IE, rarely even above the knee).

Men have plenty of freedom when it comes to their choice of attire, tis just that few choose to exercise that freedom. Their loss. Bland uniformity has become the norm where I live but tis not enforced. I think guys like it because tis easy ... hmm, what shade of (insert fave colour) should I wear today? If you're from Toronto you know that colour is black, and in the fourth largest city in North America black is always the new black.

lagatta wrote:

Well, obviously that is the case in Montréal as well, though we all picked up a fair bit of red for the student protests, and could wear it again for Idle no More. Yep, I'm all in black this morning. We'll get the red out again for Pride this weekend. At least no bloody pastels.

Black and red together, I approve—the colours of my Goddess.

Mórríghain wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Well, obviously that is the case in Montréal as well, though we all picked up a fair bit of red for the student protests, and could wear it again for Idle no More. Yep, I'm all in black this morning. We'll get the red out again for Pride this weekend. At least no bloody pastels.

 

Black and red together, I approve—the colours of my Goddess.

Red - the blood of angry men!
Black - the dark of ages past!
Red - a world about to dawn!
Black - the night that ends at last!

I wasn't familiar with Les Misérables (recognize the Parisian neighbourhood and historical references though). Nothing to do with paganism, more along the lines of the socialist and anarchist strains of revolutionary movements... Québec spring full of these colours.

Mórríghain wrote:

lagatta wrote:

I wasn't familiar with Les Misérables (recognize the Parisian neighbourhood and historical references though). Nothing to do with paganism, more along the lines of the socialist and anarchist strains of revolutionary movements... Québec spring full of these colours.

When I think of the use of red and black by political movements two extremes come to mind; communism and the Nazi style of fascism. Odd, sworn enemies sharing a vibrant colour.

Roxanne James, the Conservative MP for Scarborough Center and member of the Status of Women committee, was an activist member of Ontario’s Keep Tops On (KTO).

She says 'If we don’t take a stand right now, you’re not going to believe the things you will see in five years from now on our streets'. Special interest groups and activists have taken our constitutional rights to a level where we have made a mockery of our constitution. They all scream for their rights, but nobody is willing to discuss responsibility. A society can only enjoy true freedom when rights are with balancing responsibilities.

"Where are the laws protecting your family? In all this chaos, what's happening to my constitutional rights? I won't take my family to a public park until something is done. I want my children protected.''

"With this, we may as well bring the adult magazines down from the top shelves and mix them in with the comic books."

Unionist wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

"Where are the laws protecting your family? In all this chaos, what's happening to my constitutional rights? I won't take my family to a public park until something is done. I want my children protected.''

Perfect! They won't be missed.

But we'll be sure to keep them abreast of any changes.

lagatta wrote:

Red and black tend to be colours of the far-left or the "alternative" left

Tis a strong colour combination but when I wear it the colours have nothing to do with politics. I won't even wear a cause-specific ribbon.

Of course it should be legal. Whether it (and male barechestedness) is always appropriate or in good taste is another matter all together.

Bacchus wrote:

Correct me if Im wrong but doesnt a Ontario Court of Appeal decision only apply to Ontario? Or did it go to the Supreme Court after that?

Good old Wikipedia says:

Quote:

The Ontario Government decided not to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, and thus it has remained the prevailing interpretation of the Criminal Code in Ontario. Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times. R. v. Jacob has been cited in similar decisions in other provinces and by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Labaye, and is taught in Criminal Law courses.

So, it seems that it applies to all of Canada.

This week in Idiotic Things People Do In The Name Of Feminism: Boob parade!

First things first. In Canada, women won the right to bare their breasts in public in 1996, so the claims that this march is about gaining rights is a little misleading. Spokesperson Denise Belisle said the women participating in the event in Vancouver were fighting for women in other places where going topless isn't legal:  "For the women who do want to go topless, they should have that option. They do here in Vancouver, that's great, but not everywhere." How, exactly, women parading topless down Robson Street, in Vancouver, where it is already legal, impacts the law in other places is unclear.

Second, it seems relevant to mention that Go Topless Day is, as The National Postreported, "organized and promoted by the Raelians, a UFO cult founded by former French journalist Claude Vorlihan (i.e. a dude), author of 'Extraterrestrials Took Me to Their Planet.'" The National Post seems to stand out as an exception, calling the event "a publicity stunt," unlike the many other media outlets who placed it under the banner of "gender rights." Though this information should be cause for skepticism, in terms of the credibility or relevance to feminism, the media seems to be taking it quite seriously. It's no strange coincidence that news outlets seem most interested in covering "gender rights" when we're dealing with either Slutwalk or female nudity.

It is true that there is a double-standard. Aside from the douche factor, people tend not to pay much attention to men who go shirtless in public places. Women, on the other hand, are likely to be gawked at, harassed, cat-called or treated as though they are doing something socially inappropriate.

The National Post reported that "at least one participant had to hold the crowds back shouting 'You're too close,'" because, of course, female nudity is an invitation to men to behave rapily. Men think they have the right to access women in public spaces regardless of how clothed we are, but they particularly believe that women's naked bodies exist for them. What else could they possibly be for?

Of course, the message that this double-standard is sexist (I actually don't think that was the message, or really that there was any message at all -- but let's pretend for argument's sake) failed because those behind the march don't quite get it. The chant, "free your breasts, free your mind," tells me that the GoTopless folks have avoided looking at the root of the issue. There is little that can be changed at the surface, particularly when we we don't understand why the inequality exists in the first place. There is also little that can be changed, with regard to the objectification of women, simply by "freeing one's mind."

Belisle, said: "It's an education for men. Men are learning and they're learning to be more respectful." Of course, as demonstrated by the behaviour of the men witnessing the event, the exact opposite was achieved. Men did not learn to be more respectful, nor did they learn anything about women's rights or "gender equality." The march merely reinforced their belief that women's naked bodies equate to pornography -- they are to be looked at for the purposes of male pleasure.

Thanks Meghan!

The sad fact remains that women's right to go topless has not changed a thing. Little girls continue to have rigid gender stereotypes imposed on them almost from day one, girls are sexualized from an increasingly young age, girls and women are constantly reminded that if they do not conform to an impossibly narrow definition of beauty that they have less value as people, women in public office are ridiculed for their style of dress, their hair, their weight as if these things were more important than the political ideals they represent and women, whether they cover themselves from head to toe or wear as little clothing as the law allows, are still subjected to unwanted predatory male attention.

if I had any reasonable expectation that going topless would change all of the above, I'd be out there marching with the rest of them. But it won't of course. Breasts are a functional part of a woman's body. They feed children, sop up tears and provide comfort to scraped knees and bruised feelings. Like most parts of our bodies, they can be a source of sexual arousal. OUR arousal. They aren't toys (unless WE want them to be) and they shouldn't be the objects of ridicule and infantile humor for anyone over the age of fifteen.

Well, also human lumpiness...