What's feminist is telling girls that
1. Your body belongs to you; it is not public property.
2. Your sexuality is yours; it is not public property.
3. Your body is not an object for other people's benefit or disdain.
4. Your clothes do not make other people do things.
You can't tell girls all of that and then also say, "But you shouldn't wear short shorts." Or, well, you can, but it's not logically consistent.
Anonymous wrote:So you don't draw the line at all? Braless is ok? Topless is ok?
You know that doesn't work in the working world, so why not start teaching them what appropriate looks like at 13?
Or do you just wait till they're being hauled into HR at 22 and told "You need to dress more appropriately."
Anonymous wrote:I'll start by saying my daughter is almost seven and this is not an issue I have with her. I am just thinking ahead about the teen years and wondering what you all as experienced moms of older kids think about this.
I just saw one of my neighbors daughter (13) friends leaving the house with shorts short enough that you can see a peak of her underwear and her butt cheek. Just a peek- but the underwear were red- shorts were knit khaki. I was talking to my neighbor and we both ended up talking about this business of the current fashion of super short shorts.
On one hand, I think it might just be too much exposure, and there is an aopportunity to teach a young girl that different exposure amounts can generate different reactions, some of which they may not want (Leering construction workers, for example.)
On the other hand, it could be this amount of skin is so normal now that it doesnt get the reaction from men that I might imagine it does. Also, I think if a young girl carries herself non sleazy and doesnt actually dress sleazy (this girl did not) and the shorts and just short but not remarkable beyond that, then that counts for something as well. Maybe.
How have you felt about this issue? Is this something a parent can actually control and if so should they?
Anonymous wrote:Phrasing it as "you don't need to display everything" assumes that the girl's body is an object for other people's benefit (or disdain).
I am all in favor of talking to 13-year-olds about the male gaze and objectification and how society assumes that women's bodies are public property.
But it's not wearing short shorts that turns 13-year-old girls into objects. It's being a 13-year-old girl.
(see, for example: http://www.theonion.com/articles/teenage-girl-blossoming-into-beautiful-object,31061/ )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
And those kinds of clothes aren't for a girl's comfort. They're designed to conform her to the expectations of the male gaze. There is nothing "feminist" about them.
Clothes are not feminist. Clothes are not anti-feminist. Clothes are clothes.
What's feminist is telling girls that
1. Your body belongs to you; it is not public property.
2. Your sexuality is yours; it is not public property.
3. Your body is not an object for other people's benefit or disdain.
4. Your clothes do not make other people do things.
Part o
You can't tell girls all of that and then also say, "But you shouldn't wear short shorts." Or, well, you can, but it's not logically consistent.
Anonymous wrote:
And those kinds of clothes aren't for a girl's comfort. They're designed to conform her to the expectations of the male gaze. There is nothing "feminist" about them.
Anonymous wrote:I was at a party this summer where the teenage daughter of the host and a couple of her friends came through in those shorts and equally revealing tops. Several of the men (her father's age) literally turned their backs to stop from staring.
I'm not into slut shaming, but wearing anything that is so revealing it makes other people uncomfortable seems out of line.