Monday, August 25, 2014

The Over-Sexualizing of Ankles and Elbows

             According to Orthodox Jews, elbows, ankles, and collarbones are far too sexy for public viewing. This ideology recurs in several other cultures and religions, including Islam. But many Feminists today attack women who choose to dress modestly due to piousness or any reason otherwise. They argue that modesty is anti-Feminist, as the laws, of course, apply only to women. However, it is far more likely that modesty does more for equality between the sexes than any modern Feminist tactic, as it focuses on respect from others and for oneself.
Jewish modesty laws, as enumerated lengthily in the Torah, are quite strict. From the neck downwards (excluding hands and feet, largely out of necessity I would imagine) every square centimeter of skin must be covered. And not by a spandex cat suit, either. Those women adhering most strictly to these Jewish traditions typically don long, body-grazing skirts, paired with modern tops layered with white undershirts stretching from the nape of the neck to the crease of the wrist. But the modern orthodox gal’s daily routine doesn’t end there. The Torah also dictates that a married woman ought not exhibit her hair in the company of men other than her husband. So to complete her morning beauty regiment, she places a full and flowing wig of hair firmly on her head, and struts out the door (depending on her company, of course).
            Today, many women (and even men, I suppose) denounce these devout Orthodox females, arguing that their beloved religion is anti-Feminist. This is due to the fact that the meaning of “Feminism” has changed. Historically, Feminism was a movement that sought for the equal rights and treatment of women everywhere. Its proponents enabled women to vote, empowered them to be both mothers and laborers, and fought endlessly to earn women equal wages and benefits in the workplace. But today, Feminism is something different. Feminists today ask different questions.
            They ask, “If a man can sleep with seven women in seven days and be considered a ‘stud,’ why can’t a woman?; If a man can sleep with his teacher or boss and be praised for it, why can’t a woman?; If a man can walk around with his shirt off without any consequence, why can’t a woman?” And so forth. The idea behind this is that if men are allowed to do these things, women should be able to do them too. It seems that the new norm for Feminists is to strive to emulate the worst of men’s’ behaviors. Equality was tainted, then altogether left behind, in favor of an overly sexualized culture, more concerned with getting laid than getting ahead in life. Arguably, modesty is a happy alternative to this new Feminism, because it opposes these unfortunately well-set social norms.
            A modern Feminist might see the Orthodox laws of modesty as an infringement to her right to free expression and equality. But in fact, modesty might be much more beneficial to the cause than any modern Feminist tactic. For one thing, modesty demands respect. A modest outward appearance insists that those who look upon you do so with much greater interest in your words and behaviors, that they look you in the eye. Equality cannot always be forced upon people. And if men cannot be cumulatively conditioned to look at a woman’s face rather than her body, then the obvious conclusion might be to eliminate their choice in the matter. And while it should be the responsibility of those with the lusty thoughts to control their eyes, and all other extraneous parts, it is the also the responsibility of women to acknowledge that their outward appearance (not limited to amount of skin showing!) has a large impact on those around them. Most female executives would not willingly choose to wear pajamas or running shorts to work, as they’d rightly fear their contemporaries wouldn’t take them seriously. The way we present ourselves is important. And by wearing shirts cut too low and skirts cut too short, a woman insinuates that she leads her social life in a certain unsavory way. It’s truly unfortunate that these stigmas don’t hold true for men. But nonetheless, they exist. And they cannot be ignored.
Many Feminists would also say that women have fought for years to be able to wear what they want when they want, and that we ought not regress to traditional ideologies. But truly, women do now possess the right to dress how they choose. A look through an Urban Outfitters catalogue suggests that wearing brassieres with miniskirts is now an entirely acceptable way to dress. But accompanying the right to choose is the responsibility to choose maturely. It’s ridiculous to suggest that every woman out there trade in her tank tops and shorts for ankle-length skirts and turtlenecks. However, a modern take on modesty could recommend shirts not delving too far into ones’ cleavage, and skirts not straying more than a few inches above the knee. And even then, those brave enough to cover themselves completely in a society obsessed with sex ought to be praised rather than persecuted.
Revealing clothing and risqué behavior are actually disempowering to women. We see in television programs and advertisements today that women are being hyper-sexualized. Corporations and pop-culture products, from Bratz and Barbie to The Bachelor and Age of Love, pose an enormous problem for women because they reduce them to consumers of a manufactured sexuality. Culture today depletes females’ self-esteem, and insists that they assimilate into an overtly sexual version of themselves in order to gain acceptance. Feminists should be fighting this nasty phenomenon, not propagating it. Modesty, whether spurred by religious leanings or personal ones, is a far better and far more traditionally pro-female philosophy than contemporary Feminist practices. 

No comments: