Lately, I keep hearing things about modesty and how the
church objectifies women by insisting on it. They think that pretty soon, we’ll
be all turtlenecks and burqas, and HOLY COW, how oppressive is that!
I hear women saying that THEY ARE WOMEN, hear them roar, and
THEY ARE SEXY and that it is their right to be sexy. For men to look at women
and note, perhaps with a lustful thought or two, that they are sexy is objectification, and the result of a character flaw.
Control yourself, you sex-obsessed beasts. We are curvy, and have breasts –
deal with it!
(But I thought you wanted to look…sexy…which, is it not, an
attempt to be especially appealing to the male of the species?)
The new standard feminists are demanding is that sexiness be
included as a characteristic in the equality of value, capability, and
performance of women. I think they’re saying, “We’re just the same as men,
except we’re different!”
Given that God created men and women with an urge to merge,
I think it is foolish for us to expect that women can dress with physical
assets on display, and men will be blasé about it.
I reiterate, isn’t the purpose of dressing sexily to prove one’s
hotness? The feminist clarion call, for many years, has been that we are more
than sex objects; we are intelligent, capable, contributors in our society.
When a woman dresses so that her cleavage is on display, isn’t she objectifying
herself? Isn’t she saying, I’m smart, and capable, but be sure you don’t miss
that I have big breasts too? Isn’t she saying, my physical assets are on par
with my character and capabilities? Are they? What about those of us who don’t
look good in bikinis? Aren’t they implying that we are inferior women because
we lack the physical characteristics whose display they are defending?
Women can holler and complain about men’s objectification of
the sexy, but I maintain that the woman who dresses with low-cut bodices and
tight, short skirts is objectifying herself. She’s saying that her breasts and
booty are equal in value to her intangible characteristics, and it’s an
invitation for others to assume the same.
I’m not advocating for turtlenecks and burqas, don’t get me
wrong. {Sidebar: Why do the burqa and the bikini get paired anyway? As if those
of us stumping for more modesty are going to embrace the practices of a culture
who treat women as chattel! There’s a lot of spectrum between the bikini and
the burqa!}
Burqas are another form of objectification. That culture is
saying to their women, “You are a collection of parts which, if seen, can only
lead to perversion.” This requirement is not protective. It is disrespectful.
I think that, for the most part, we women know when we are
dressing to expose and draw attention. We know what kind of attention we are
seeking. If I am wearing something that makes it difficult for a man to look me
in the eye, I am reducing my opportunity to be respected as a contributing
member of society…not because of his view of me – but because of the value I
put on myself.
As I said, I’m not seeking to clothe the women of America in
turtlenecks and shapeless dresses. I think every culture has varying standards
when it comes to modesty, and immodesty. I’m not proposing a universal uniform.
There is nothing wrong with dressing attractively, or with being beautiful…Just
as there is nothing wrong with being fashion-challenged, or physically outside
of the current standards for being beautiful.
For myself, I wish to dress in a way that doesn’t draw
attention, either by flashiness or homeliness. I enjoy my wardrobe, but I don’t
want it to compete for the definition of who I am.
I just don’t understand why women, who are wholly committed
to equality, now turn to demanding the right to objectify themselves.
It seems nonsensical to me.
