August 21, 2007
JUST BECAUSE NOTHING CAN EXCUSE THE VIOLENCE...:
The false modesty movement (Anne K. Ream, August 21, 2007, LA Times)
On websites such as Modestly Yours, Modesty Zone and DressModestly.com, its adherents argue for curfews on college campuses, decry coed bathrooms and advocate a "chaste but chic" dress code for teens and young women. They call themselves sexual revolutionaries, but that might be something of a misnomer: In their world, abstinence is the order of the day and female virtue is the best way to ensure female safety.The faith-based website purefashion.com, which encourages teen girls to "live the virtues of modesty and purity," instructs young women to be "helpful at home . . . obedient and happy." What's troubling about this language is how neatly it anticipates the findings of a Yale University study showing that men who get angry in the workplace are admired, while women who express displeasure are seen as "out of control." So much for the idea that well-behaved women rarely make history. Apparently, it's far more important for girls to make nice.
Marketers are getting modest too. Macy's now carries "Shade" clothing, created by a team of Mormon women devoted to demure dress, and Nordstrom features "Modern and Modest" apparel.
The mother of the modesty movement is Wendy Shalit, whose 1999 book, "A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue," argues that today's young women have reverted to an earlier mode of femininity, deciding that in the face of sexual excess, chastity is the ultimate 21st century rebellion.
No one would argue that the right to say no to sex isn't a good thing. And surely we can agree that talking to girls about the value of their bodies, and their selves, is a welcome cultural shift. But when Shalit argues that "many of the problems we hear about today -- sexual harassment, date rape . . . are connected to our culture's attack on modesty," she is making a dangerous leap.
It's not a lack of female modesty but a sense of male entitlement that leads to sexual violence.
...doesn't mean we have to accept with a straight face the argument that women can treat themselves like skanky ho's but expect to be treated with respect. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 21, 2007 8:10 AM
Like the old adage that locked doors make honest neighbors, the blame is always on the perpetrator, but there are things one does that makes one more or less likely to be a victim.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 21, 2007 10:43 AM"It's not a lack of female modesty but a sense of male entitlement that leads to sexual violence."
The wellspring of male violence toward women is not a sense of entitlement, but a sense of physical superiority. Men in general are bigger and stronger than women. Since they can, some men will, even though they shouldn't.
Nattering away about entitlement is the stuff of consciousness-raising groups.
Posted by: Ed Bush at August 21, 2007 10:49 AM"Skanky ho's"? No radio show for you.
Posted by: Brandon at August 21, 2007 11:24 AMIf "a sense of male entitlement" is what leads to sexual violence, then there must have been a lot more sexual violence 100 years ago, when sexism was the norm and women couldn't vote, right...?
This reminds me of the "poverty causes crime" argument, which is easily refuted by many examples, including the Great Depression.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 21, 2007 12:12 PMIn reading these sorts of articles one wonders about what's really informing the author's worldview. Is she really completely and totally ignorant of human nature? Does she hate historical social norms (i.e., Christianity) so much that she simply holds that anything traditional must be wrong? Or does she just hate women?
Posted by: b at August 21, 2007 1:29 PMI think what she is really saying is that she wants to walk down Hollywood Blvd. late at night, wearing next to nothing, and not be mistaken for the other girls who are doing just that.
OJ - some of the immodest ones aren't skanky, which is all the more reason they need modesty, no? And I'll bet the author is driven by just a wee bit of jealousy towards those better looking girls. Even the 'modest' ones can get a man, but perhaps she hasn't.....
Posted by: ratbert at August 21, 2007 11:42 PMimmodesty is skankihood
Posted by: oj at August 22, 2007 7:19 AMAside from the journalist's bias in this piece, or perhaps as a result of it, she doesn't even accurately reflect Shalit's views. I read her latest book, Girls Gone Mild (there's lots of great info about it at www.girlsgonemild.com), and she completely misses the point of Shalit's argument.
Posted by: David at August 22, 2007 7:31 AMModesty or the lack of it doesn't cause violence neither does racism or misogyny. In violent societies, even women shrouded in the ultimate modesty of a burqa require a male body guard to insure their safety.
Here at home, we, the people have allowed prostitution and drugs to flourish on our streets and that culture brings forth those who seek to profit from the baser instincts of their fellow citizens and corrupts our law enforcement agencies with its easy access to large sums of money.
In a well ordered society, everyone is protected, law breakers are in jail and the streets are safe. At the risk of old codgerery, when I was a kid living in New York, we rode the subways at all hours coming home from the movies, ball games, etc. Never once did we feel the slighted bit uncomfortable or threatened.