So, I meant to post this as a comment to Sosi's "Fashion/Feminism" post, but I am no good on the computer. Anyway, I felt this video was interesting in light of the earlier conversation about "slut walks," and also interesting along the lines of how clothing seems to unavoidably speak for women, in a much more pronounced way than for men. I have been attending the Occupy Denver meetings and rallies and trying via youtube to follow the occupy movements in other cities as well. Because of this class I have been viewing some of the events through a feminist lens. There have been no topless protesters that I have seen in Denver, but there are definitely women who use their dress (not necessarily in a feminine way) to draw attention and make themselves heard. They usually are successful in drawing attention. One of the topless women in this video is holding a sign that says "I didn't say look I said listen" (you can see it briefly if you pause the video at 1:41) Despite having stated that I do not entirely see the "slut walks" as advantaging the feminist movement's struggle, my initial impression during this video was very different. I think it had much to do with the fact that the Occupy movement is not specifically about women. Part of me feels that situationally speaking I don't have a problem with women exploiting the attention thats paid to their bodies for a larger cause. On some level, I feel I participate in this as well with my choice of dress when I go to the rallies and meetings (No, I don't go topless!). While dressing I'm invariably considering how my presentation will affect how people will perceive both me and whatever have to say. I think that's unavoidable, and if I dress more nicely I have found that my voice is more frequently solicited and subsequently heard. It's hard to think what might be the more ethical choice: dressing to make your voice heard or try be heard in another way (and can you even avoid this). I see the topless woman holding the "I didn't say look I said listen" sign as the logical extreme of exploiting the attention paid to women in order to be heard: at some point it looks ridiculous, but is there a gradient to this?
You've hit on an issue that historically has been divisive in feminist thought for the last several decades.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that the look from the guys that the camera pans over to at around 1:00 speaks volumes ... especially the grin on the guys face who looks toward the camera.
I am finding it difficult to find a "gradient" in this like you say .. if on the other hand these women were advocating their right to appear as they do in public (some places don't allow this), I would agree more with you when you say: "Part of me feels that situationally speaking I don't have a problem with women exploiting the attention thats paid to their bodies for a larger cause".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I think I didn't quite articulate myself clearly enough. It's not that I presume these topless women will necessarily draw attention to larger issues that are a part of the occupy cause, perhaps they don't even care to. And on that note, the occupy cause obviously has much to do with the bail-out, foreclosures, the deregulation of the banking system, etc., but it absolutely includes a plethora of other issues that people bring to the table. In that sense, I felt less offended by the use of their bodies in a movement that is not as specific as the "slut-walks." Because, for the "slut-walks" the very issue they are contesting seems to directly include the over sexualization of women--so at times the use of their bodies in their protest seems to undermine the goal of their cause.
ReplyDeleteThe gradient I was speaking of had to do with the discussion of how women are frequently construed through their clothing--whether that be just the simple choice between a pair of pants or the application of make-up. You don't have to decide between going topless or not to encounter the conundrum. Whatever women wear, and this seems to be more true for them than for men, they are subjected to scrutiny in terms of what they choose and the scrutiny moves beyond simply whether or not they have good taste. I think the topless ladies are the hyperbolic version of this issue--it's obvious that the men will grin and giggle at the sight of breasts. But they aren't protesting the exploitation of their bodies and I find it more difficult to pass judgement on whether they should throw a shirt on, because they aren't contradicting themselves (The woman holding the "I didn't say look, I said listen" sign might seem to, but personally I think she's being ironic.)
Originally I was convinced by Elizabeth's argument, and found myself agreeing that it was slightly more appropriate in the Occupy situation, however in the end I reminded myself that in some ways, the topless woman is saying to the public, that for a woman(and this may be true of men too but that's another discussion...) it is easier to get your attention via a public display of the body than via "normal" channels of communication in which the general public will take her voice seriously. Unfortunately, no matter how you slice it the concept of the woman is still rooted very much in her body, and oftentimes it takes that kind of exploitation in order to gain serious consideration.
ReplyDelete