I read an article yesterday by Anne K. Ream at this link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...a-news-comment It's a protest to the so-called "Modesty Movement" that seems to be gaining ground. I had some fundamental problems with Ms. (I know she has to be a "Ms.") Ream's position, which I'm going to address here. I'm quoting parts of the article, and following each quote with my response. If you want to read the original in full, just follow the link!

What is it about the growing "modesty movement" that makes me so nervous? On the face of it, there's a lot to like about a girl-driven "revolution" that offers an alternative to the in-your-face fashion popularized by the Britneys and Bratz of the world. When a statement T-shirt can turn a girl from a subject to an object -- "I'm blond. I don't need to be good at math" -- in no time flat, who could argue that a return to sartorial decency is in order?

Indeed, who could argue with the fact that t-shirts can send the wrong messages, and/or be very offensive? Take, for instance, the shirts that say, “Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!” Are boys really stupid? Of course not. Do we really want to throw rocks at them? I sincerely hope not. Yet, when boys complain about such sayings, they are often told, “Can’t you take a joke?”

Enter the modesty movement. 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.

Hmmm…It seems to me that a sexual revolutionary might be someone who chooses to go their own way with regard to their sexuality, instead of going along with the crowd. When the crowd is encouraging girls and women to show as much skin as possible, to tease as much as possible, and get offended when a man responds in a sexual way, perhaps choosing to dress and present herself modestly and not spread her legs indiscriminately DOES make her a sexual revolutionary.
And, while I don’t ever condone forcible rape (and by forcible rape I mean being forced to perform sexual acts against a person’s will), I do think it’s quite obvious that if a person engages in dangerous behavior, they are much more likely to be a victim of a crime than someone who acts with a little more forethought.
Please note, I am not advocating total abstinence before marriage. I am advocating being selective, having sex in the context of a committed relationship, and not spreading your legs for every man who excites you.
That’s not empowerment, ladies. That’s just slutty. In other words, if you act like a slut, expect to be treated as one.

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.

I would be interested in seeing this study. I can’t really say that seeing anyone get angry in the workplace is something I admire. It strikes me as weak that someone would quote a study and not give a reference. Makes it hard to credit the results.
In other words, I ain’t buying it.

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.

What is wrong with modesty? I am personally weary of the fact that I can’t find clothing for a 6 year old girl that doesn’t bare a midriff, expose where pubic hair would be if she were old enough to have any, make it impossible for her to sit down without showing her panties, or give the illusion of breasts. Add to that the fact that girls seem to be hitting puberty much earlier these days than they used to, and you wind up with 12 year old mothers, and men in jail for statutory rape because she told him she was 18 - and she looked it!

...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. And the idea that we women can change men's behavior by changing our clothes is not only disconcerting, it has been debunked. As millions of women know all too well, no one ever avoided a rape by wearing a longer skirt.

Sexual violence, like any violence, is perpetrated by sick people who are predisposed to violence. To say a “sense of male entitlement” leads to sexual violence is to say that all men are rapists. Is that really what you want to say?
Consider the following statement: “It is a sense of extreme female selfishness that leads to drowning children in the tub.” What’s that you say? It’s only a few mothers with obvious mental illness who do that? That’s my point exactly.
When you generalize and make blanket statements like that, it destroys any credibility that you may have established with any neutral readers. There are some evil men, yes, but it has nothing to do with their biological sex. It is their mindset as an individual.
And while I agree with you that “no one ever avoided a rape by wearing a longer skirt”, I know that if I were a rapist, I would be far more likely to target a woman who wore something that looked easy to remove, drank too much, and wandered off by herself, than a woman who wore something more modest and stayed with a friend or two. Likewise if I were a date-rapist. Whether she wanted to be raped or not, it would look to me, if I were that mentally bent rapist, as if that first woman were “asking for it”.

...According to Mansfield, modesty is one way to set right what the feminists have wrought: "Women play the men's game, which they are bound to lose. Without modesty, there is no romance -- it isn't so attractive or so erotic [to men]."
And therein lies the problem with so much of the modesty movement. Scratch the surface, and what's supposed to be good for girls reveals itself to be all about the boys: dressing in a way that doesn't over-excite them, demurring so that their manhood remains intact and holding tight to our sexuality until we find a husband who is worthy of that ultimate "prize."

Wrong. That’s a hell of a leap to make from someone saying that immodest women who try to be men are not attractive or erotic to men, to drawing the conclusion that he meant that girls mustn’t over-excite men and should remain virgins until marriage. Shame on you, Anne. Here I thought you were empowered, arguing logically, and keeping emotion out of it. Last time I checked, women WANTED to be attractive to men. At least we heterosexual women do. Femininity does not equal weakness. It does not equal a burka, nor does it equal showing nothing but hands and face, nor does it equal prudishness.

What's lost in this view of the world is the power of female desire: not just sexual and sartorial but professional and intellectual. There is something liberating about a girlhood (and womanhood) that is not lived solely in anticipation of, or in response to, a man. There's something freeing about a world in which women have the right to take risks (and to get mad).
I suppose I'd feel better about the modesty movement if it had its parallel in the world of men. But quite the opposite is true. At the top of the bestseller list is "The Dangerous Book for Boys," a celebration of male derring-do that encourages boys to dive into life headfirst, taking and embracing risks along the way. The authors and publisher have made clear that no parallel book for young women is in the offing. I guess the fairer sex will have to satisfy itself with Shalit's latest tome: "Girls Gone Mild."

Of course women have their own desires and goals and dreams. There is nothing wrong with that. And guess what? Men are not lining up to stand in the way of our fulfilling those things.
But why should everything be the same for women and men? We ARE NOT the same. Not on the outside. Not on the inside. That is one of the greatest lies of feminism.
We all have our strengths. We all have our weaknesses. And there are many, many things that men are just as good at as women, and women are just as good at as men. This has always been true.
But. We. Are. Not. The. Same. And this woman is tired of being told that she has to be.


More...

I changed it up a little, but it's essentially the same as I already posted...

Agree with all the above Kelly Mac

I wish the hell I knew how you possess,already knew or know, or learnt this Km:
- to recognise this fundamental fact about us!!! I very very weary of trying to justify and explain to women we are not out to prevent them enjoying or fulfilling any dreams or desires. etc...I have given up explaining this.


Re Modesty - great article it would help stop more than lust.It would prevent colds (Lol esp in our climate in the British Isles), stds and restore respect for the person - for men as well as women.

Thanks Kelly. It may be a while before your kind attitude becomes common.

Hardcore feminists cannot admit that there are real differences between the sexes, they have too many other arguments based on this axiom.

All you have to do to prove that men are aroused visually is look at the last fifty years of adult entertainment; the vast majority of consumers are male yes? Hugh Hefner made millions on the lust of ordinary "guys-next-door."

When I see young Muslim women walking down the street with their head-scarves and long skirts they look more graceful and self-respecting to me than the average Western skank wannabe.

Well, thanks for that.

What are you saying KM? It's really not clear.

If women want to hang everything out, that's OK because they have nothing to fear from 'normal' men? But they should be wary of the 'SICKO'?
The law will take care of him if he misinterpreted her actions. No worries there.

Women that choose to hide their personal parts for future advantage might be accused of sleeping with the enemy? They might even be MUSLIMS!!!

Some enlightened women such as you KM are seriously pondering these important, nay vital, matters. Meanwhile thinking western men are quietly walking away.

If life as a man means you have to get screwed, there are places where the ubiquitous suffering is at least acceptable in male terms.

Come clean KM. You're wriggling. What do you realy want?
Please, please, please, don't say EKWALITEE.

Well, guys, I was going along with all these feminist ideas, and it struck me one day - I have never been the victim of discrimination because I am a woman. I have never known anyone who was a victim of discrimination because they are a woman. About that same time, I started reading and asking questions on the nice guy's site, and the logic finally got through

Hey, I'm a girl. Logical thinking doesn't come naturally to me.

@ Yan Yan: I can't tell if you're asking me a serious question. I'm gonna go with you're teasing me. If not, ask again...

By the way, I've been posting on a thread about "Nice Guys (TM)" over on Ampersand's blog. Talk about people buying into the official line, and ignoring what's happening around them! I can't access that site from work, but I think I'm gonna post the conversation here, probably this evening. It just makes me shake my head. I was trying REALLY hard to be nice, non-confrontational, just trying to have a rational, civil discussion. Not happening...

Orthodox Jewish women have practiced "tznius" (modesty) for centuries...though they define it much stricter than "regular" society.

More info:

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books...-within/01.htm

http://www.tznius.com

(I have to admit I dress this way only part of the time, but otherwise I do try to be mostly modest.)

On re-read it does look like I'm teasing but that wasn't the intention.

Your article was very good KM. Your conclusion (WE ARE NOT THE SAME) is as true as I sit here fiddling with my Korean-surplus keyboard. Why pursue the idiot notion of equality?
I just wanted to provoke you to draw some further conclusions.

If 'we are not the same' what's the function of the law and the constituion? Who does it protect and serve, and for what reason? Like us you're swimming against the tide.

Sure! But in these wierd dysfunctional times, it translates to the newly-enlightened as "dissolute skank seeks sucker- call me now!".

Honorable women like yourself suddenly find themselves a 'minority'. You hold fast to a version of morality that's no longer 'sexy'.
Where do you go from here? Really? If you want to pursue the 'equal but differrent line' we'll need some new evidence of women putting honour before their own interest. Where should we look for the best examples?

Yan Yan said:
If you want to pursue the 'equal but different line' we'll need some new evidence of women putting honour before their own interest.

Just to be argumentative...

Let's say that women are the 'keepers of the flame', the guarantors of our species' survival. Their interests could overlap with nature/evolution, while men push ever forward in their ability to tame and trick the universe.

If their collective wisdom tells them that men have gone too far in threatening the existence of the human race, is it not logical that women would withdraw from their normal deference and submission? To honour Mother Earth, they resist the menfolk who they perceive to be traitors to our race.

To me this is the only real argument that feminists can fall back on. The rest is just rationalizing.

Yes, that's argumentative!
So, if women are 'keepers of the flame' there would be ample evidence that their efforts improved all of our lives.

If there's definite proof that feminsim has improved the lives of men, women and children across the globe... I'd reluctantly sign up.
Isn't it more about supporting the dollar?

Well, if it all comes down to greed there's nothing to say is there?

But if we men do succeed in destroying all human life (which is now technically possible) all the arguing and politicking will be moot.