I don’t know which century you’re talking about. The decolletage of at least the last several centuries and hem lines of certainly the last one and the current one are not what many would call very modest. I’ll bet you and the vast majority of the women you know and see never wear sweats to work, probably only rarely to the mall and possibly only occasionally to the grocery store… Let’s get real: sex sells; always has; probably always will. Besides that, even if I and the men I know and see aren’t buying, we do enjoy “window shopping”. I hope the burka doesn’t catch on here.
@ibelieveinlogic You never heard of Joan of Arc? Please tell me you learned about her in school. That woman did a “man’s job” before many women even thought about it. She lived in the 15th century and allegedly wore men’s clothing while fighting military battles.
Joan of ArcSenator, you're no Jack Kennedy
And the picture you chose to associate with your ID makes my point.
Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy
Huh? Not sure what that statement has to do with Joan of Arc
And the picture you chose to associate with your ID makes my point.
Again, that has nothing to do with Joan of Arc, much less the topic of that thread. The picture I choose deals with my favourite show, my role models, and above all Humanism. Now I tell you why Star Trek, Roddenberrys (specifically Majel), and humanism have nothing to do with this thread. Although Humanism does have a little to do with the topic at hand, how I came to humanism had a lot to do with Gene Roddenberry, his wife Majel, and Star Trek. They were humanist and I happened to have read an article (an interview with Gene) in the magazine called The Humanist back in the early '80s. I may have been 15 years old. Fascinating article, that may have been archived somewhere around the internet. As for Majel, who is also a humanist, she was a great woman and actress, who I enjoyed watching as a child in the original Star Trek and then again in later Star Treks. I especially loved her as Lwaxana Troi. Now that has not a thing to do with the topic at hand. So please do me a favour and lay off the late Majel Barrett Roddenberry and stay on the topic at hand.
If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation, say nothing.
Huh? Not sure what that statement has to do with Joan of Arc -- MrianaYeah. Bob's response was really out of left field.
I’ll bet you and the vast majority of the women you know and see never wear sweats to work, probably only rarely to the mall and possibly only occasionally to the grocery store.Sweatpants in public is a common look for 20-40something women. People are more depressed and more overweight than ever, so it makes sense there is not much effort to look good.
Yeah. Bob’s response was really out of left field.For people who seem so interested in politics, do you two really not understand the sentence or are you trying to be obtuse?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you%27re_no_Jack_Kennedy ... some variation on the remark, have become a part of the political lexicon ...In case you still don't get it, my use of the remark was a way of saying, without actually saying specifically: "Mirana, you're no Joan of Arc.
Now that has not a thing to do with the topic at hand.If the "that" you're talking about is Joan of Arc, I totally agree that she has nothing to do with the topic of women dressing the way they do.
You might want to look up “decolletage”. The cleavage shown in the picture of your heroine is exactly what that term references.
From wiki on decolletage: Since at least the 15th century, women in the Western world have used their cleavage to flirt, attract, make gender statements, and assert power.
“Mirana, you’re no Joan of Arc.
I never said I was.
If the “that” you’re talking about is Joan of Arc, I totally agree that she has nothing to do with the topic of women dressing the way they do.You might want to look up “decolletage”. The cleavage shown in the picture of your heroine is exactly what that term references.
No your response had nothing to do with the topic. My response did.
And if you continue the trolling, you may find yourself banned (see rule 3e). I can cite you for some other things too, like being uncivil, which is also in the rules, but we’ll leave it at trolling for now, but do read the rules. Consider this your first warning.
use of the remark -- BobI saw that debate. The comment lacked relevance, cleverness, and poinanyncy. It was just a weird insult.
DNA tests on 105 bodies excavated from the Battle of Senbon Matsubaru between Takeda Katsuyori and Hojo Ujinao in 1580 revealed that 35 of them were women.
I doubt that theses women went to fight not wearing armors and weapons.
What is interesting with this fact is that it shoes that samurais women on the battle field were much more common than it was believed up to now.
Sigh … Concrete thinkers … Sigh … Might as well not say “in general”.
Bluecord35 questioned the utility of gender-specific clothing. I merely pointed out that clothing is chosen more on the basis of how one functions in society than gender, and I won’t again qualify that observation by saying “in general”, rather I’ll say that it will hold for most people most of the time in most situations under most circumstances and of course it is likely there will be exceptions. I hope we can agree that since form follows function, style follows purpose.
If you mean that on a battle field, a woman will not dress in mini skirt and high heels to fight, i more than agree.
Now, when you say that style follows purpose, i would agree also, with a remark. I society, purpose and functions are socially defined, and nature does not justify it by itself. And, in fact, i am not sure that the purpose of clothes as defined by society is fully functional in the material sense of things.
In France in schools, the students male and female want often that 13 years old girls be clad in a way they show off as attractive. A girl who clothes herself so is socially functional, but not always effectively for her daily life needs.
In other schools, it is asked the girls to hide themselves in ample clothes and even not to wear skirts. The girls who cloth themselves so are socially functional, when under a heat wave, it is not very functional.
girls be clad in a way they show off as attractive.Exactly. And it depends of what is deemed "attractive" and on how much is too much or how not enough is too little. One fairly consistent measure of how the stock market would do used to be the length of skirts. I believe the emphasis on being attractive is a primary cause of girls'/women's vulnerability. The Koran says it is the woman's fault if by showing too much she makes weak men do crazy hormone-fueled acts. Some truth in that: desire is one of the big three motivators and we don't covet what we don't see. Finding a balance is not a one-size-fits-all problem. Better that boys/men be more disciplined. We could, if we wanted to, teach that but it probably wouldn't be politically correct; a bit like teaching morals.
In fact saying that women must hide themselves to not create sexual desires in men reduce women to a statue of sexual objects and men to no mature persons, unable to control themselves and unable to think about women other than as sexual objects.
Nowadays, in western countries, most men are taught that women are valuable members of the community and should be respected as such.
Muslim countries experience shows that hiding women’s bodies does not work.
In Muslim cultures women are owned by men. In large poor Muslims families, it’s not unusual for the father to sell off his daughter, who might be as young as 9, into marriage. Meanwhile, she is often buried in a sack from head to toe. That has to be degrading to the point that girl or woman depreciate themselves, feeling like a useless object.
If you mean Islamist countries you are right, but from West Africa to Indonesia, there are many Muslim cultures and they differ of each other. Matter is that Islamism is contaminating each of them.
The second point is that many of theses customs are not or were not muslim by themselves, veil included.
Morgankane02 said:
In fact saying that women must hide themselves to not create sexual desires in men reduce women to a statue of sexual objects and men to no mature persons, unable to control themselves and unable to think about women other than as sexual objects.This is commanded by the Quran on the premise that men are such animals that they are unable to resist any display of the female body. This is why women are being punished and commanded to wear the burkas in 120F. i.e. a taste of hell
Nowadays, in western countries, most men are taught that women are valuable members of the community and should be respected as such.Muslim countries experience shows that hiding women’s bodies does not work.
That’s right, but the patriarchical society likes submissive women just fine.
he patriarchical society likes submissive women just fineIf someone can come up with a way to get a man to look at a woman and avoid judging whether she is a candidate for a sexual encounter, he/she will change society. Every man I have ever known does make that judgement, at least subconsciously, and it is obvious. The one exception I have noticed is that the judgement is suspended temporarily during an immediate need to achieve a goal requiring cooperation with the woman but the judgement process returns as soon as the need is met.
I don’t have the right chromosomes to know whether a similar process is intrinsic in women, but I suspect it is.
If you mean Islamist countries you are right, but from West Africa to Indonesia, there are many Muslim cultures and they differ of each other. Matter is that Islamism is contaminating each of them.
Yes, that’s what I meant. The problem is, they don’t call themselves “Islamist”, they call themselves Muslims, but I think that’s like The Church of God- Anderson Indiana, and Church of God World. One is a Xian sect (I grew up in it and always heard, “Not that one”) and the other is a certified cult.
As for the veil, it is included in the Muslim sects too, because if you read the Koran, you will find that Mohomad and his followers, travelled in the cover of night (funny, because in the Bible those who do evil like the dark) and the women covered themselves in a black gown head to toe, so that they would not be seen by a potential rapist when they went to relieve themselves.
This is commanded by the Quran on the premise that men are such animals -- Write4UI can research it in more depth if you want, but it's not in the Quran. There's something in there about women who are travelling alone on certain highways that had bandits. This was the early days of commerce, when they figured out infrastructure supported the economy, but people who didn't want to follow the rules figured out the infrastructure made it easier for them also. The women who had some wealth and were trading their goods were able to dress nice, and the thieves used that to identify them. So, the origin of the dress code is not about attraction sexually, but attraction to being a mark for getting robbed. Dress like you're poor and they won't bother shaking you down. I've forgotten the part of the story of when it got changed to the hijab, but it was much later.