Why boobquake isn't destroying feminism

Greta Christina, a wonderful feminist writer who I respect immensely, has written a piece called A Feminist Defense of Boobquake. Greta perfectly summarizes how I feel in regards to all the women who seem to think I’m single-handedly destroying feminism. Just to give you an idea what it’s about, here’s a bit of the piece:

The main feminist objection to Boobquake seemed to be that the women who participated were letting ourselves be exploited. They argued that many men reacted to the event with sexist, “Show us your tits!” idiocy—a reaction McCreight should have foreseen, and was therefore responsible for. Even if the intention behind the event was good (a point on which anti-Boobquake feminists differ)—even though the event was initiated by a woman and voluntarily participated in by women—the result was simply another round of female bodies being objectified by men.

Ah. I see.

Women ought not to display our sexuality—because men can’t be trusted. In the presence of a display of desirable female flesh, men will lose control of themselves. Women ought to dress modestly, and ought not to encourage other women to dress immodestly… and if we persist in our immodesty, and men respond by behaving badly, it’s women’s fault.

It all makes sense now. I just need one question cleared up:

How, exactly, is this “feminist” response to Boobquake anything but a more moderate version of the statement by the Muslim prayer leader? (Minus the supernatural idiocy about earthquakes, of course.)

How is this “feminist” response anything but an attempt to squash female expressions of our sexuality, for fear of whipping men into an uncontrollable frenzy?

How is it anything other than blaming women for the fact that many men behave badly?

Hear hear.

I’m not going to spent much more time defending my feminism, mainly because I have better things to do with my time. If you want to assert that I’m not a real feminist, go ahead. I don’t care if you want to turn your allies into enemies. If you want to assert that I’m falling into the trap of “cute” feminism because I dare to joke about my body, go ahead. I may laugh a bit, since I’m one of the least stereotypically “feminine” people I know, but judge away. If you want to slut shame and think embracing my sexuality is giving women a bad image, go ahead. I know that doing so doesn’t mean I’m ditzy or brainless – I know I’m a smart cookie, regardless of what you think.

But when you’re doing all of these things, just remember: Feminism is about choice. I never forced you to wear a low cut shirt. I won’t judge you if you abstain from sex. I won’t sneer when you say you’re a stay at home mom. And likewise, you shouldn’t have disdain for my choices. Feminists always wonder where all the “young” feminists are. We’re here, but we just hate calling ourselves feminists – because when we do, you have to come squash our actions and say we’re doing it wrong.

I’m not upset. I know that whatever you say, someone, somewhere will be offended. If the cleric had said eating pork caused earthquakes, and I suggested Baconquake, I’d probably be getting nasty emails from vegans or PETA. If the cleric had said drinking alcohol caused earthquakes, and I suggested Beerquake, I’d probably be getting nasty emails from teetotalers. But if I lived my whole life in constant fear of pissing someone off, I would stay silent and accomplish nothing. And what good is that?


  1. katsudon says

    I was pretty annoyed when I read the Salon article. I’ll just C&P what I said in my Blog That No One Reads. XD”Then on to the fact that there are some creepy dudes that are all happy because women are going to show off their cleavage. Or that this puts women on parade. You know what? No matter what we do, we’re on parade as long as society remains patriarchal. If we want to wear something that shows off our cleavage, the patriarchy wins because the patriarchy likes boobies. If we wear turtlenecks because the patriarchy likes boobies, then we are just as surely being controlled. From where I’m standing, worrying about what the patriarchy (oh faceless devil that it is) thinks about our fashion choices is the ultimate no-win situation. The fact that we’re worried about it to begin with means that we have ceded them just a little more control over our choices and our lives.In the Salon article, Beth Mann mentions the feminists of yore burning their bras as a political statement. It was bold, and it was shocking. But you know what? I bet there were some dudes standing around that were more than happy to ogle the angry feminists with their braless breasts. So has it ever been. I think it’s just as much of a political statement that those proud, angry women didn’t let that stop them.”

  2. says

    Exactly. Screw the haters who fail to see humor and light-heartedness, or who think any woman who is at ease with her body and showing it off now and then is a slutty anti-feminist who’s just succumbing to the wishes of “Dude Nation” (a phrase I shall hereby use solely in derision). If they can’t see how women choosing to mock the cleric’s idiocy with cleavage (which is all too fitting, to boot) is, in fact, the exact definition of feminism – ie. allowing women to do whatever the heck they want without being silenced because of their gender – then they have much deeper issues and may wish to reexamine their own supposed feminism.

  3. says

    ‘Feminism is about choice’ well said. In my recent dissertation on feminism I described my own idea of it as the freedom to choose and the education to make an informed decision.

  4. says

    I’m just wondering why it is wrong for men to find women physically attractive, or for women to dress in ways that will allow men to be physically attracted to them, or for men and women to generally enjoy looking at each other and also enjoy being looked at? There’s something wrong with people who make a big political poopie in their pants about women showing their boobs and men noticing. It is natural and normal and healthy and a pretty wonderful thing, and double-good if it can be used to mock some sanctimonious twit with a faith-based delusion that sexuality is somehow evil. That twit might be a Muslim cleric… or it might be some feminists who think that women should be free to do anything they want, as long as it suits their personal definition of “feminism.” Nasty stuff either way.

  5. A-M says

    I so agree with this! As it turned out, I did not participate in boobquake, because although I fully agree with the premise, I am married (to a fellow atheist) and seeing as I can’t give him my soul or my eternal love (they doesn’t exist) I chose to reserve all flesh rights to him and him alone. That lucky man!But if you want to show off your goodies and you’re comfortable with that, that’s your perrogative. If men CHOOSE to misbehave because of that, the onus is on men. How is that in any way anti-feminist? Perhaps we should be directing our wrath at the men who can’t remember which organ is supposed to do all the thinking?

  6. annette176 says

    As a youngish woman, just leaving fundamentalist Christianity, I am researching feminism, and it scares the crap out of me! I’m completely terrified by Feministing and Feministe and by their response to boobquake (which I thought was brilliant!) So, I’m encouraged to see that people, who claim to be feminists support you, and it makes me feel that maybe I’m a feminist too. Though I’m going to fly under the radar. Never know when the Real Feminists might come to get me. (No doubt, I’m a skeptic, and I’m not scared of skeptics. Why do I have to fear other women, who supposedly support me and my rights?)

  7. rob philip says

    As a (gasp) man that grew up with the seeds of feminism in the 70s, I discovered I quite disliked the “men are evil” feminists. What I have always done (and continue to encourage) is treat everyone, regardless of gender as a *person*.

  8. Aidan says

    *gasp* feminist fundamentalists preach orthodoxy from the pulpit…women are not amused

  9. nattybumpo says

    I made many of these same comments to the creators of the “Brainquake” page on Facebook, telling them that some of their wording was a valication of what Hojat-e-Islam Psychopath said. I do support the idea of Brainquake, but I don’t see any reason why women should hide their sexuality…that’s what forced hijab is all about. Focusing just on “boobs” or just on “brains”, either one, only looks at half the human and both are equally deficit.

  10. says

    Boobquake proved two things (Probably many more!), that the Iranian cleric was wrong, and some men are puerile and lack self control, which is what the Iranian cleric was saying in a round-about way. Immodest women cause men to have affairs, is that the fault of immodest women, or the men who lack self control?Most men grow out of that pubescent sniggering (I believe that’s ‘snickering’ in the US of A.), and what Jen’s boobquake event has done is to expose those men who haven’t grown up enough to control themselves. Why should women imprison themselves in expansive clothing, why can’t they dress as they want, why should women dress so that immature men don’t have to exercise some self control?Freedom of expression comes in many forms, speech, prose, art, music and the attire that best expresses your personality, none of these are open to diktat by men, or women.By the way, I’m a nudist, anyone object to me being naked on any beach I choose?

  11. says

    “Feminism is about choice.”That’s what I thought it was always about. Choice. Equality.Women have sex–or at least the capability. Women can choose to embrace or hide from sexuality.Does being a stay-at-home mom not deserve the same respect as the nude model as the astrophysicist?edit: and some (most?) men like to look at boobs. that doesn’t mean they devalue the rest of the woman. I love my wife for lots of other things in addition to her boobs.

  12. says

    I just wanted to thank you for suggesting this. My friends and I had a great time planning our own “boobquake” festivities, and enjoyed the opportunity to make prudes, hyper-religious hypocrites and other fussy types uncomfortable.And, to add to the comments above, I always thought feminism was about empowering women to control their own destinies. To encourage women to break free of the restraints placed on them over the ages by scared little boys who felt threatened by a confident, actualized woman.Oh, well, I guess to some women it just means replacing the yoke men used to control with one “wiser” women control. I think you’re doing a great job here, you are being you without limits, and it is a beautiful thing. :)

  13. Pat323 says

    There’s always people who are going to gripe and moan about something. Look at all the people who stood beside you! At my tender age of 50+, I say…”Up their wazoos!! Breasts are beautiful and let the girls have air!!” Never be ashamed of your bodies, celebrate them! I grew these breasts and am damn proud of them. Hell yes i’ll show them off :) And yes, even in public. People need to get over their puritanical ways.

  14. says

    I’m not condoning the actions of all the creepy guys out there. Believe me, as a former DJ in strip clubs I know there are plenty. But all the so called feminists carrying on about guys who look at women need a reality check. EVERYBODY looks at people they consider attractive. It’s just human nature. Try to tell me women don’t look at guys they consider hot, or women they consider hot if they happen to be lesbians. Stop trying to control or deny the sexuality of people. It makes as sense as trying to get a tiger to go vegan.

  15. Ron says

    I live in Guelph ON, Canada…..Home of Gwen Jacobs…check her out. What do we think of that?

  16. Josh says

    Well said, Jen. The bad thing about this Feminist-Nazi-sh** is, that these women disclaim everything thats feminin.

  17. Jamie says

    Well-behaved women seldom make history. And we should all plan to misbehave. :)

  18. Jo says

    “Men are evil” feminists exist because they were abused by evil men, like getting raped for showing cleavages… its sad and tragic, but true…

  19. five678 says

    I am a stay at home mom, raising a boy, and pretty involved with facebook. Before that, I took mechanical design and worked estimating for manufacturers and distributors in the steel industry – pretty male dominated and pretty old school male dominated. The only thing I know for sure is you can’t waste time worrying about who doesn’t get it. I proudly participated in boobquake and will watch for more of your ideas to be sure. Way to go…young feminist. Some of us know you’re here now…keep it interesting.

  20. EricaGlasier says

    What could be more feminist than CELEBRATING BOOBIES?!You go, Jen. Your response to the cleric’s nonsense was a rational, logical, completely scientific one, and ultimately you handed him his ass. Applause.

  21. Old Knudsen says

    Some Christians/Muslims/Feminists whatever the word seem to have a handle on how to behave and everyone else is wrong. I got my moobs out on the day even though weemen just see me as a piece of meat to be lusted over but there are bigger issues at work and the world didn’t come to an end………. besides it was a joke so would the ugly uptight weemen at the back gurn up please?

  22. Jen says

    To label myself a feminist completely defeats the purpose behind being one. I participated. And I thought it was brilliant.

  23. says

    I’m personally not saying men should never find women physically attractive, even when they’re wearing something sexy. I’ll be the first to admit I enjoy it when the frat boys are running around outside shirtless and showing off their six packs. But the fine line is between enjoying respectfully and shouting “SHOW US YER TITS!” The latter is what I consider men behaving badly.

  24. Joe C says

    I thought the whole thing was brilliant. Millions of women shaking their boobs, etc, in the face of stupidity. Absolutely classic.

  25. 36D says

    This is really stupid. It’s a sign of the rather luxurious irrelevancy in our discourse that this IS discourse. We live in a society in which sex is censored in films and violence is not. You wanna’ talk about that? Slasher films? Good! Visible genitalia? BadHell, half the women I teach (university) come to school with their tit’s 90% exposed 90% of the time.

  26. Joe says

    How is it that men are at fault for enjoying the sight of breasts? Men are biologicaly predisposed to have a serge of hormones that makes them feel amazing and compells them to want more when exposed to such things. This isn’t wrong on the mans part. And exposing ones self isn’t wrong on the womans part if she wants the attention that comes with it.Now this does not mean a woman should be objectified… If a woman is showing off her “goodies” she should expect a man, or a lesbian, to want to get a good look. Thats what our bodies tell us to do. But as civilized people it would stop at looking. Whats wrong with me seeing someone in a skimpy top and thinking “thats really hot, I wish I could play around with her and have some sexual fun… Maybe I’ll go talk to her and see if she’s into that sort of thing”What is wrong for men to do is force a woman to do something. But it being wrong for men to react in a natural way to a womans choice? I’m sorry but is walking over my rights as a man to look at what ever I want in a public space, just as its your right to look at what ever you want, and dress however you would like.What is so wrong about enjoying each others bodies?

  27. Meggu says

    Yeah, there’s a name for those “Real Feminists” that you’re scared of. Feminist Extremists. They took the core values of Feminism (equal rights and pay for men and women) and warped them (Women should have all the power) and that’s just wrong. It gives the true Feminists a bad name.

  28. prowess64 says

    So much has not changed since I was an undergrad and blamed for single-handedly bringing feminism to shame for inviting men to “Take Back the Night” and refusing to support a boycott of stores selling Playboy. I proudly donned my push up and low cut top on Boobquake because as a woman I have that choice. It’s the “New Victorian” argument alive and well. Keep on keeping on.

  29. Ali Cheaib says

    I do not necessarily see Boobquake as yet another static confrontation between Western men and women. Reducing it to such a tiny aspect of the discourse will only serve to omit the larger picture. In my opinion, boobquake is an intelligent response with a silly guise to a dangerous medieval social thought that has swept the Middle East with vengeance. What we are now witnessing is systemic spillover to the rest of the world. The audacity of this Mullah in Iran transcends the boundaries of the Middle East. It is another reincarnation of a man-made narrative which places all of the world’s ills on women. Many Jewish and Christian institutions played that card before and now it is the Muslims’ turn to perfect it.Boobquake is nothing more than an innocent and spontaneous attempt at caricaturing the maliciousness of the situation at hand. This rapidly emerging movement that enslaves women using a religious frame of reference is a dangerous spectacle that all men and women must fight together. We must fight using different mediums, including poking fun at it.

  30. says

    I tried to comment on GC’s article myself, but I fumbled the interface and lost a mini-essay. I going to say that I wasn’t happy about the demonisation of even civilised heterosexual men in terms of drooling creeps that has been frequent here and is detectable even in GC herself. Now personally, I am irritated by all frat-boy behaviour, such as loud wooting over breasts. I haven’t made any sort of comment about Jen’s appearance, for example; not only because I endeavour to be polite, but also because I simply don’t care. None of the tiresome jokes about earthquakes in pants have come from me. I read this blog for the science, atheism and nerdy humour, and couldn’t care less if she looked like R2D2. For me, the joy of the Internet is appearance not mattering. None of you know what I look like and that’s the way I like it. Back to ogling: When I see an attractive strange woman I keep my appreciation to myself, but it appears that the mere ocular reception and software processing of photons reflected from her person is deemed sufficient to qualify as major sexual sin. I do wish someone would invent a magic filter so that a woman can wear revealing clothes but remain apparently covered in the eyes of all men whom she herself does not find attractive. That would mean that a Western street-scene would look to me like Teheran at Friday prayers, but at least the kvetching about kings and cats would become redundant. Re Jen’s point about the young feminists. In my country, Dworkin is the only official feminist game in town, in consequence whereof heterosexual and non-misandric women do in fact eschew the feminist label. They may believe all the same things as Jen, and even fight for them, but often they don’t self-identify as “feminists”. The term has been contaminated, but not by us men. The damage was done by the failure of other women to stand up to the dworkinistas at the crucial juncture when an orthodoxy was congealing. I particularly liked GC’s implied equation of this subspecies of feminism with fundamentalist religion, because in my opinion the psychology is in fact identical, it’s the playing of a Game in the TA sense. I think Eric Berne called it “Now I’ve got you, you SOB!”. And this game is central to the born-agains, see my http://hugogrinebiter.com/?p=9… for an analysis of religious one-upmanship. Those whom the cap fits, may wear it. A successful nuclear strike of Puritan censoriousness makes people feel SO much better about themselves: damno ergo sum.

  31. says

    Christ on a crutch. Ignore ’em, kid. I think you’re awesome, and I’ve been pondering these issues for a hell of a long time now. You even got my writing mojo going again.

  32. nóR says

    Here’s yet another feminist voicing that Boobquake was total feminist action! Intelligent, radical and fun, right on time, easy for people to participate – great initiative, we’re proud of you, of us!

  33. Lauren says

    “Feminists always wonder where all the “young” feminists are. We’re here, but we just hate calling ourselves feminists – because when we do, you have to come squash our actions and say we’re doing it wrong.”You hit the nail on the head there.

  34. says

    Yeah, but those are children and not adults… so they don’t count. :)Other men are not responsible for the behavior of those idiots, so why would women somehow be responsible either? Feminists complaining that women are somehow responsible for badly-behaved men just strikes me as stupid… and part of the problem with extremist feminism. The sort of “you should have known men would react badly” is insulting towards pretty much everyone except the people who behaved badly, and sounds just a bit too much like the rape apologist’s “well, she shouldn’t have dressed like a slut” line.

  35. Brad says

    I can’t believe we’re still having conversations like these. The body debate has been over for quite some time now, and these women, these Feminazis, who are attacking Miss (or is that Mz?) McCreight for her brilliant satire are obviously lacking in a knowledge of satire, sarcasm, and common sense.Now, before anyone jumps down my throat for using the term “Feminazi”, realize that I’m not tarring all feminists with the same brush. Feminism on its own is a good thing…feminism taken to a feverish and paranoid belief that all men are simply out to rape/oppress/strip away the rights of/demean women…THAT is Feminazi-ism.Women who complain about men being rude, demeaning, condescending, or catcalling have obviously never been in a public washroom while other members of their gender are discussing the hot waiter that brought them their appetizer, or have never gone to a bar when “Ladies Night” was on and the male stripper was getting more lewd comments than men give to female strippers.Let’s face it, men and women are basically the same creatures. We as straight folk find each other attractive. It’s not “being oppressed” when someone finds you attractive. That said, certain people (both men and women) can sometimes express that attraction in the wrong way. With the added factor of the anonymity of the internet, some men view that as license to spew forth all sorts of idiocy, those men are not an accurate depiction of ALL men. This is where the Feminazis get confused.

  36. rob philip says

    Which, of course, still didn’t and doesn’t make *ME* evil. Being treated poorly because of my gender by a “men are evil” feminist is indistinguishable from a woman being treated poorly because of her gender. I know a number of women who were abused and correctly focus their anger on the abusers, not all people sharing the same chromosomal structure.

  37. says

    I love that the naysayers seem to be presuming to tell you, and the participants in Boobquake, what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies. Because that makes -total- sense from the Feminist viewpoint. Right. I attended, promoted, and event wrote about (see link below) Boobquake and I will a second time if you host the event again. Cheers!Link: http://www.associatedcontent.c

  38. says

    As a male who believes in the core principals of feminism, let me make clear that even though we may say things like “everyday should be boobquake”, we don’t view you as objects. We think ladies are beautiful, and we like looking at them.This said, the guys who shouted “show us your tits” are pigs.

  39. jo says

    Of course, I agree with you, but its understandable… it’s called “post-traumatic stress”. Men who rape don’t have that excuse, they don’t treat women poorly because they got raped or abused.

  40. krisness says

    HERE HERE! :) I’ll drink a beer and eat half a pound of bacon to that.. mmm bacon and beer – someone should make beer that tastes like bacon for us cleavage showing women – and non-cleavage showing women – to enjoy. :) Seriously though. There in lies the problem with feminism – it should be about choice, and there’s a stigma attached to calling yourself a feminist (oh so you hate women? is the comment I most receive – which is so untrue, I love men, some of my best friends have been men or are men). We’re currently working on redefining feminism I think, every new generation of feminists redefines it for themselves – there will always be dissent, backlash, factions – if we could only just get along already… I love your blog btw – :)

  41. Epimetheus says

    I will be happy to serve as your token teetotaler if you need someone to endorse beerquake.

  42. Gracer says

    Breasts are not genitalia, you noddy! And why, exactly, is displaying boobs “Bad”? Can you explain that? Is it bad when it is done women in African tribes? I know muslim women who feel the same way about exposing their hair as western women do about exposing their breasts, does that mean that women exposing hair is also “Bad”? And to whom is it “Bad”? Who is damaged? The men seeing the boobs? The other women seeing them? Is it “Bad” to breast feed because the child will see boobs? Should we start showering in our bras lest we see our own boobs?Please explain this “Bad” thing, I’m very confused.

  43. Julie says

    I do. But personally, I think we should all wear some form of clothing in general social situations. If I wanted to see you naked, I’d ask you. If I wanted you to see me naked, I would show you. Then again, you’ve put some interesting thoughts into my head. If we’re going to say it’s okay for women to dress scantily if they choose, then why should we limit anyone to wearing clothing? But I think the key difference is in the gender discrimination–it’s not necessarily because society deems it immodest, but because it is immodest for women. But where do we draw the line? 60 years ago, the societal rules of decency and immodesty were quite different, for men and women. The rules continue to grow lax, so that now it’s acceptable to show most anything, as long as nipples and other vital parts are covered. Will we eventually move the line so far back that there aren’t rules against even nudity? What is so vital about not showing nudity that it remains a rule?

  44. five678 says

    I think 36D was commenting on the way our society censors tv and film…not actually saying they believe it’s bad..?And…36D – it’s only stupid if its irrelevant…and unfortunately, it isn’t – but I do wish it was.

  45. mcbender says

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. In point of fact, I’m very irritated by what you call “frat-boy behaviour”, but it bothers me from both genders and I’ve actually called people out on it (because for some strange reason I see it from my female friends much more often than from the male ones; it just seems to be more socially acceptable for women to objectify men, perhaps due to this particular misandrist strain of feminism). I object to objectification in whatever form it happens to come, and I agree entirely that one of the nice things about the internet is that appearance (and any other extraneous factors) have no bearing on the impact of one’s arguments.I’ve also encountered this phenomenon whereby most of the people I see self-identifying as “feminists” are actually the misandrist type… I remember an incident in high school where one of my teachers (incidentally, a man) asked us to raise our hands if we were feminists and I very pointedly didn’t do so; when he asked me why, I replied that I was in favour of equality and gender’s becoming increasingly irrelevant in how we view one another (and that therefore I was against feminism). His reply? “You’re a feminist then, raise your hand.” I had never previously heard the word used in that sense; the ambiguity is a lot of the reason I try to avoid using it.

  46. johndavidfeldman says

    Look you cant take feminism and flashing your tits and put them together. Feminism is about respect not getting naked ok thats a whole notha issue. Who knows what direction feminism will take next but I can tell you it should be about equality.

  47. rob philip says

    Actually, there is a pretty high correlation between abuse as a child and abusive tendencies as an adult, irrespective of gender. Which does not excuse bad behavior – it’s just an explanation.In any case, we’ve diverged a ways from the Boobquake discussion, and I think I’m going to get back to my day and away from flashbacks of college girls who objected to my being so sexist as to hold the door for them. Have a *great* day!

  48. Micha zielke says

    Hello from Galicia in Spain! I think there´s a big a lack of humor everywhere…so please don´t be so serious. No ayatollahs, no popes…

  49. says

    Thats why I hate the word feminist and hate “feminist” in general, they do not want to help women, rather they bring them down.

  50. REX says

    This is exactly the comment I made on Greta’s blog. I love it when strong intelligent confident women decide to flaunt their sexuality a bit. I am always very attracted to the strong intelligent confident aspects, and when it intersects with a good bit of healthy sexuality, it is really good icing on a really good cake!The thing to realize is that when a thoughtful observant man sees these things, he can appreciate them greatly without being an obnoxious ass.

  51. says

    I said the same thing in my blog ref about Boobquake…if the feminist perspective is the same thing as the Islamic fundamentalist bit, how the hell is that in any way an improvement? I don’t want to be told what to do with my body by either religiously deluded men OR ideologue females, thank you very much.

  52. says

    Hi (-: I have a number of friends who joined in with BoobQuake – I let a number of them know about it personally – I agree with what you say – ‘How, exactly, is this “feminist” response to Boobquake anything but a more moderate version of the statement by the Muslim prayer leader?’ it’s not really. However, it is a fact that a lot of the blokes I told about this did react as if the Feast of the Breast had arrived. But only when they didn’t bother listening or finding out about the reasoning behind BoobQuake. When they knew the glint went from their eyes and the strength of backing people who were doing something came to the fore. Most men, including me, like the curve of a breast but most of us prefer the human first. Well done – I wasn’t looking forward to having my house collapse! Thank goodness the Ayatollah was wrong!! (-:

  53. says

    The only thing I object to is the swipe at older women who call themselves feminists… I get what you are saying – but I LOVED boobquake and know you are not just a smart cookie – but a funny one!My feminism is about freedom – I do what I want. It’s about many other things as well – anti-religious misogyny, freedom of gender expression for all, equal pay, equal parenting (work load) — and a whole lot more.It’s NOT about telling you “you are doing it wrong” – Just like it was never about hating men or telling women who chose a more domestic path were not real feminists. Now get back to your studies missy. There really are things that are more important than defending yourself against the ridiculous charges coming your way.Rock on.

  54. says

    Hey Joe – I think it’s part of our history – We very much were and are in many places still treated as property and objects. Seeing women as JUST an extension of the things MEN own was and is real in many places.That said – it does get mixed in with our biology and expression of our sexuality – women who dress less conservatively do get treated like shit by men and women too.One example from this whole thing. There’s a great youtuber – She’s eastern European, has an absolutely brilliant take on language and words. She does a show called Hot for Words – basically an etymology show + the sexy. She is in fact really hot, and we have a tendency to in a very sexist manner discount her because of how she looks. She’s not having it. Screw the anti-sexy world that says you cannot have brains and boobs on display.Men who act out are the problem. Not women.No excuses.

  55. Rachel Y. says

    Am I the only one to point out that the male reaction was part of the equation? The cleric’s train of thought was immodesty -> male reaction -> earthquakes. Without men’s reaction, the chain reaction would be broken, wouldn’t it. The point is that we exposed ourselves to the extent we were comfortable (I’m a feminist who is proud of being a woman and all the charms that entails – the problem is when I try to be serious and men should ‘show us your tits,’ not when I’m deliberately invoking my power as a sexual female). Men reacted as they’ve been programed to do, and we didn’t shift tectonic plates beyond the usual. Some of us even had fun in the process! :)

  56. says

    and sadly their pronouncements are what the mainstream media likes to highlight. I am constantly defending myself against a lot of really dumb pronouncements and positions that I don’t hold.That said – there are many streams of feminism – just like economics( Keynesian, Marxist, etc etc etc…) Feminism is a discourse not a program we all agree to. We do agree on is this – self-determination for women, empowerment for women, our full share of economic power and resources for women, and choice.

  57. says

    Where do you live that “Dworkin is the only game in town…” That’s crazy town…also – we have the internets now. She was never representative of the whole and she is not now. Anywhere.

  58. says

    The media defined “feminism” as misandry. It promoted the least egalitarian to the fore. It is a long term dialectic process…. not a platform.

  59. Quaking in Canada says

    So, if I reject the notion that I am responsible for not only MY actions and reactions, but those of the men around me, and display my femininity in any way I am comfortable with, that makes me what? Misguided? Licentious? Playing into the hands of the same men who would exploit me, if I allow them to do so?A male friend hosted the Boobquake party, does that make him a pervert?Is there any chance we could settle for me being ME, showing solidarity, and welcoming of like-minded folk, male or female?Let’s not forget we’re talking Mother Earth here, ladies and gentlemen, and HER reaction to our actions…

  60. says

    Annette, if you are questioning that you have a role beyond the very rigid definitions of those around you, you are a feminist. If you think there’s more to life than what ‘your betters’ have laid out before you, you are a feminist. If you want to learn more about your choices before making any decisions, instead of submitting politely to what is offered to you, you are a feminist. If you want a choice, guess what? You are a feminist. Good Luck.

  61. says

    While I generally agree – I don’t think you have ever felt actually threatened physically by someone who was ‘expressing attraction’ – It is not always a genteel dance of welcome flirtation… it can be threatening and demanding depending on the sense of entitlement of the man in question. That is why women push back around this stuff. So don’t get defensive – it’s not about all men – but about a certain kind of man, not entirely uncommon who threatens by his actions and demeanor to take what he wants, and is often really pissed off when you make it clear that you don’t want him. It can be very very scary and it can turn to stalking and violence. We often don’t know and most of us have girlfriends or experiences ourselves of things going horribly offtrack with unstable or entitled men or groups of men egging each other on.Not all men – but that is where some of this comes from…

  62. Max Payne says

    The fascination with female breasts is actually an evolutionary decision. The larger a woman’s breasts, the better she will be able to nourish a child. QED, large breasts get men horny, because it means that the child will have a better chance at survival. The societal implications of breasts shown or hidden came later. In fact, the idea of shown breasts being “immodest” is a direct result of faith-based population control and a form of competition: the best suitor gets the best wife. In ancient India, women with large breasts would actually wear them exposed, as a statement of power, wealth, and ability to raise good children. Also, said women would not be touched except by their husbands because they were highly respected, again for their ability to nourish a child. The fascination with breasts is not a North American thing, it is an evolutionary drive to raise the best children. I think that people who think that anything they view as evil or wrong as a purely localized phenomenon are just lost, rejecting their own culture, and ultimately morons.

  63. says

    You are awesome, bookquake was awesome, and this post is awesome! People are definitely trying to turn “allies into enemies”, and that doesn’t ever help any cause of any kind! Do you know what everyone should be thankful for instead of complaining about? That an atheist, pro-gay, feminist, skeptic, person (who can also express her opinion quite well) is getting tonnes of attention! Keep it up!

  64. says

    Ah, wasn’t attempting to swipe at *all* older feminists ;)And my two finals aren’t until Thursday and Friday, so I actually have free time now! Really, I promise! *halo*

  65. says

    Well, actually, not exactly. Breasts of all sizes pretty much produce the same amount of milk, so larger breasts would not give any fitness benefit. If it even is evolutionary in nature (which is highly debatable), more likely it’s a form of sexual selection, since the trait you’re selecting isn’t directly increasing fitness….*end Evolutionary Biology Geekiness*

  66. says

    Men don’t rape because we show cleavage. Men rape because they want to control women. I was wearing a T-shirt (a tight T-shirt, but nonetheless, no cleavage per se) when I got raped. The guy just figured I was an easy target because I was quiet and standing alone in the corner of the bar after my friend abandoned me. He had no interest in me or my boobs.. I have DDDs and he barely paid attention to them. He just wanted someone to beat around because maybe I should have been home and in the kitchen making him a sandwich.And not all of us rape survivors turn into “men are evil” feminists, either. I’m a feminist along the lines of Jen and others. The “men are evil” type feminists weren’t all abused. They simply are extremists–and extremists get to where they are for all sorts of different reasons. Sure, some were probably raped or abused. But maybe some just have the extremist “all or nothing” mentality from the beginning and can’t seem to be content with a happy medium… or maybe they’re just power-hungry and want to overpower men for power’s own sake… or maybe they think men have had their time and now it’s women’s time to be in charge. Who knows where they come from.But saying men rape because of cleavage flat-out deprecates the experience of every women who has survived rape.

  67. says

    @Liz: Norway. Small country, you see, creating inbred social dynamics. For example, in our universities you do BA, PhD and become professor all in the same university, which I am given to understand is frowned on in the US for fear of intellectual incest, can you confirm that? Second, our religious history is Pietist (ever read Ibsen’s “Brand”?), and so creating small groups with sole possession of the Truth is deeply rooted in the national psyche. In the 70s a Trotskyite sect venerating firstly Mao and then Hoxha was intellectually powerful. The line from brimstone preachers to Trots to dworkinistas is obvious, no? But Liz, I must disagree with you about the media selecting the loonies as representative. Sure that’s a process everywhere, and applies to other groups too (tea party?). But it doesn’t apply to what individual real-live-women have said to me, also a real-live-person; this is not selected by any wicked editor out to defame by association. Moreover, this is a country where the lines of McKinnon, say, would be a government minister, or head of a government feminist think-tank or equality directorate or other official body. We are currently in the middle of a battle royal over sociobiology, wherein a TV comic has read up a bit on evolutionary theory and is making monkeys of our inbred (see first para) gender-studies academics. The feminists are having conniptions. One of the big wheels replied scornfully about him and his sidekick playing in “the boys’ room”, which is precisely the sort of Silencing Technique you ladies used to object to when deployed against you, no? I pointed this out in a letter, which of course the paper spiked.

  68. says

    @mcbender: I replied that I was in favour of equality and gender’s becoming increasingly irrelevant in how we view one another (and that therefore I was against feminism)Wow. Will you marry me? ;-)

  69. says

    Nothing it wrong with men enjoying the sight of breasts! I’m a woman and bisexual and I very much enjoy the sight of breasts myself.What’s wrong is when men (or women, I’ve come across some really lecherous lesbians, too) stop seeing the breasts as an element of beauty and instead see them as part of a sexual object to be conquered, caught, bought, or sold. When you transition from “Oooh, pretty, maybe I’ll talk to her!” to “Holy Tits Batman! Wait, there’s a human being attached to those? Nah, that’s just the carrier for the tits.” Or even worse, to “Oh man, BOOBS. Let’s slip something in her drink so I can see them later, WOOOOOOOO”Boobs are attached to us women. And they’re pretty. And we should be allowed to show them off as little or as much as we want. (As Jen pointed out, feminism is about choice.) However, men also have the responsibility to treat us with respect, REGARDLESS of whether we decide to show ’em off or cover ’em up. I don’t treat the guy who’s outside my window shirtless washing his car like a pretty doll set up there just for my entertainment, and he should give me the same respect when I go outside to wash my car in a bikini tomorrow. He can admire my rack, just like I’m currently admiring his six-pack, but I realize he’s a human being, not a walking set of pretty muscles… and I expect the same from others.

  70. janehutnik says

    shared the blog post on our page Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan New Jersey. We have advocates that are both feminist and young, imagine that!. Cheers to you – you go girl.

  71. says

    @Brad: Some people react very badly to the term “feminazi”, and you can see why. Godwin’s Law and all that. No good purpose is served by devaluing g the Nazi word. In consequence I would offer you my alternative term for this subspecies, namely “femistalinist”, which is much more accurate, with regard to both the historical origin of PC (don’t let people bluff you that it’s a right-wing invention, “politically correct” was standard commiespeak) and the whole criticism-self-criticism/re-education-camp and Judaean People’s Liberation Front ambience. In my book, the Left died when gender theology became more important than political economy. When, through the construct of Patriarchy, the half-starved Bolivian tin miner is held to be oppressing the mine-owner’s rich-bitch wife rather than the other way round, who wins?

  72. says

    @Liz: Just like it was never about hating men or telling women who chose a more domestic path were not real feminists. My best pal in Chicago would love you for that. She has worked outside the home but hated every minute of it, and thinks that the whole women-going-to-work thing was a capitalist plot to pay everyone less, since “everyone” would have two breadwinners in the house to make up for it. What that means for sole breadwinners does not need to be explained! And then the plutocracy decides to pay everyone so badly that both partners need two jobs……This might interest you: Our ruling party is determined to stamp out full-time moms, and is not interested in freedom of choice on this point. Kids into day-care at three months if possible. A few years ago someone — I think it might be the present Minister of Equal Opportunities before she made that post, but I’m not sure — suggested that legislation be passed to outlaw the practice of men marrying foreign women with a view to their being full-time mothers of small children. Even if that is what these women actually wanted.

  73. Bob says

    I think there are several points that everyone is missing:1. Each person should be held accountable for THEIR behavior. It’s not a woman’s fault that a man can’t restrain himself from oogling, and it’s not a man’s fault if a woman wears revealing clothes and he’s tempted to oogle.2. The event was meant to be fun, not really even political. I’m glad someone finally pointed out that feminism seems to be about women having the freedom and courage to do what they want, and I support that, so long as it’s within the bounds of the law and the Constitution (if you’re in the United States).3. WHY IS ANYONE SURPRISED? I mean come on, people. Of COURSE there are Feminists out there who think this works against the goals of feminism, and of course there are men out there who support the movement because they get to see more skin. Why is it even a topic worthy of discussion? If I were to streak down a football field, are you going to be surprised if the cops chase me? are you going to be surprised it some men/women oogle? Are you going to be surprised if others turn their heads in disgust? OF COURSE NOT. Sheesh.4. Congratulations on the epic movement. It’s pretty amazing.

  74. garciaja says

    I just feel like equality won’t be accomplished as long as we continue to take away attention from the real fundamental issues that woman face and continue to engage in a facetious debate over the false implications of ‘boobquake’.Jen, you keep defending yourself as if the only criticism was that boobquake exploited women. That isn’t the issue. The issue here is that you invited women to participate in a type of an event that did not address any issues, did not raise any money for any type of charity for women, and that did not forward any feminist goal. Boobquake was supposed to be a humorous reaction to an Islamic cleric’s ridiculous theory that sexual behavior causes earthquakes. The reason your ‘joke’ didn’t work is because the cleric’s point was one that didn’t need a response. It was already ridiculous to begin with, and absolutely no one in western civilization took it seriously. So why did you need to ‘refute’ something no one in western countries believed in the first place? This would have been entirely different if you travelled to Tehran and decided to hold boobquake in Iran itself. But you choose to do something like boobquake in the safety of american cities and college campuses in which women are already encouraged by patriarchs to wear low cut blouses and to show more skin. I was not really offended by boobquake but I’m offended by your willful ignorance in continuing to be unapologetic about something you did that set feminism back a few steps and your insistence that you think this has to do with boobquake exploiting women.

  75. Julie says

    They had an episode of the new George of the Jungle cartoon where they turned the carnivores into vegetarians. It was a bit humorous.

  76. annette176 says

    Hmm, maybe that’s because the boobquake was originally intended for a sceptics/scientists audience. Were you a reader of this blog before Boobquake? Do you know who talked about it first? Friendlyatheist. PZ Myers at Pharyngula and other science and sceptics blogs. I find it laughable that Big Feminism comes marching in and immolating Jen on their altar. I’m “offended” that you can’t see that. Clearly, Boobquake was a total failure by your standards. Fortunately, there are other standards. Better ones.

  77. me says

    The only reason Boobquake was successful was because people wanted to see tits. Most people don’t even know what it was supposed to be about.It isn’t an expression of a person’s own sexuality, and that’s the whole problem with it. It’s an expression of women desperate for sexual attention and validation from other people that they are attractive.

  78. lalura says

    O dear. No, really dear–I think you’re a smart, funny and articulate young woman–best to you. Boobquake was fun, as I am sure it was intended–who can take ridiculous statements like that cleric’s seriously? I check out blaghag and, while a believer, LOVED Atheist Barbie (especially her lunch). I am not Steven Colbert but I too acknowledge you. You go girl!

  79. Terri says

    I guess feminists have to wear turtlenecks in 100 degree weather. Maybe we could bring back bathing suits from the 1800s. Not all women who feel good about their bodies and want to wear clothing that shows it off want to attract men. I thought we learned that rape isn’t about sex, it’s about control. You wisely covered all your bases by saying Boobquake is about science, as opposed to defiance. You asked women to wear the most immodest thing they already own and are comfortable wearing. “YOU GO GIRL!”….Stephen Colbert.

  80. Terri says

    You are misguided. Boobquake was a success because it showed that women who dress as some people who call immodestly does not cause earthquakes. It’s not about sexuality, it’s about the freedom to dress as one pleases for whatever reason.

  81. cb says

    I haven’t read the zillions of comments but enough to get the gist that you’re getting a lot of support for Boobquake in response to some of the criticism, and that anyone who opposed Boobquake must be a prude, anti-sex, an extreme feminist, a twit, blah blah blah. I’m one of those who didn’t like Boobquake because I thought it objectified women, and I think Greta Christina is wrong (although, like her, I’m an atheist and agree with many other things she writes). I also had big problems with it because it stirred up a huge lifelong hang-up about having small breasts, feeling that I was not seen as sexy or attractive or womanly enough because of it; knowing that men often rejected me because they were obsessed with large breasts; then seeing some friends post photos of themselves in tight t-shirts and cleavage while the men were practically swarming and posting drooling comments…. It pissed me off ALL OVER AGAIN. To me — and many others who didn’t like Boobquake — the whole thing was just another way for some women to feel “less than”/not good enough about their bodies because we’ve been objectified and have objectified ourselves for so long. And you know what? We don’t need any more of that shit.

  82. cb says

    WRONG. Size of breasts has absolutely nothing to do with ability to breastfeed. Women with small breasts can nurse their babies as easily as women with larger breasts. You need to educate yourself about breastfeeding. I have small breasts and breastfed all three of my children for at least a year. They grew big and strong on my very plentiful breast milk.

  83. Lefty891 says

    I agree. ‘me’ sounds like someone who’s projecting their own neuroses on this whole event. All of the friends that i spoke to about it seemed to ‘get it’. Even the ones that are fascinated by cleavage.

  84. kevinmacschmayonnaise says

    Radical Feminism: because “Girls rule, boys drool” isn’t just for elementary school playgrounds.

  85. kevinmacschmayonnaise says

    We masculists think what you have to say right now is sexist and inflammatory. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  86. says

    here, here, Jen!i had to get over my fear of being associated as a “feminist.” having a bunch of female and queer studies friends did help a great deal. at this point my line of thought falls into a category i think one of my favorite singers can sum up better than i can:”why don’t all decent men and women call themselves feminists, out of respect for those who fought for this? i mean look around… we have this.” – Ani DiFranco

  87. Lee says

    The radical femmists are why I call myself a humanist rather than a feminist – I feel a little guilty about it because my mother was involved in the equal rights, equal pay marches and it can sometimes feel that it is a bit of a betrayal of her principles.But having said that I told her about Boobquake and she actually got out there with a low cut top herself and when my sister was heading out the door she made her undo the top button on her blouse – LOL! We live in different cities (8 hours drive apart) but she made sure all the women in the family got involved!

  88. says

    Oh, please. My fianceé has to put up with being called out as “a traitor to her gender*” because she likes to cook – about as much as I do, mind – and will happily make dinner.She loves to point out that she’s more an equalist – what she believes “feminism” should always have been.* Yes. At least two of her old college friends have used that kind of language in response to her stating that she likes to cook. Insane, right?

  89. says

    I feel another point is being missed here. I am going to pull a few quotes from comments here to illustrate a common thread.”It pissed me off ALL OVER AGAIN. To me — and many others who didn’t like Boobquake — the whole thing was just another way for some women to feel “less than”/not good enough about their bodies because we’ve been objectified and have objectified ourselves for so long.””Back to ogling: When I see an attractive strange woman I keep my appreciation to myself, but it appears that the mere ocular reception and software processing of photons reflected from her person is deemed sufficient to qualify as major sexual sin.”I don’t get angry at people who think I am weaker in a fight because I wear glasses. I don’t blame another person for losing my confidence if they heckle me while playing sports. I don’t blame the roses for wilting and not smelling nice today. Should I be angry at the porn industry if the “kong dong” in a sex shop makes me feel inferior? No. I can’t understand why people hold others responsible for their own internal dialogs. I am a married man, met my wife at 19 married 2 years later and have been together for nearly a decade. Raised by a single mom most my life I was taught respect for women, manners, etiquette, and that a woman’s honor should be defended.Beyond this I am also a man, there are biological urges that move me to do things that are inappropriate by society standards and you know what? I don’t care if me appreciating your “rack” is offensive to you. I certainly don’t mind when women feel the need to flock around children. I don’t mind when my wife purr’s a little when she see’s some buffed out actor on TV. I am sure this list could be expanded out indefinitely with biological urges women have that society is OK with. I find it sad that I can be objectified as a stereotypical male who only thinks with his penis just because I don’t restrain every action in life. I would in fact say that my mother should be proud of the filter I normally put on what I say and do VS internal dialogs.It is not within my ability to force a woman to feel dirty because my eyes do a check from toes to eyes, and because I cannot force her to feel that way I am also not responsible if past events or beliefs cause her to feel that way in response.A feeling is just that, a feeling. It doesn’t even exist in reality until we give it form through words or actions. So take a breath, relax, and please quit blaming others for your feelings.

  90. boobliscious says

    And this is where it all began. The cleric is saying that women are responsible for leading men astray. Poor men, they are forced to sin because a woman shows her knees. He is claiming that women are cause for the ills of the earth.. and there is a general feeling in islam that women are like the demons of society, the sinners and the ones who impurify men and force them to get angry, spend money recklessly and sin sexually. In my books, the last person to be a femminist is a muslim. So if a femminist’s rants sound like the cleric’s rants.. something just ain’t right. :)

  91. says

    Why does the patriarchy have to be the reason men in America have an obsession with “Big ones”? What about simply the America ideals of bigger is better and competing with the Jones’s?The original idea of men targeting bigger breasted women starts with simple evolution traits i.e. bigger breasts produce more milk thus stronger offspring kinda thing right? It has been proven wrong but I doubt the average Joe knows that. Add a dash of American consumerism and a whole slew of other ingredients, stir and serve in a patriarchy. Does the patriarchy help things? No probably not but to suggest that this will go away when women are on equal or superior footing is a fools quest.No action in the world has only a single cause.

  92. says

    Here Here! As distracting as boobs can be their was more substance in the message. Both the men who couldn’t be bothered and the women too hurt to listen should remove themselves from the conversation until they can see both sides.

  93. boobliscious says

    Exactly. I think that we’re powerful because we’re attractive naturally AND just as intelligent. So, we have the brains to do great things… and the boobs that men go gaga over. What more do we want? I went to libya once, and I felt so afraid of all – literally all – the men staring that I ended up spending 3 weeks wearing a black sack. I felt that these men have forced me to adhere to a dress code that objectifies me. That my body is everything and I must hide it or someone might jump on me. When I came back home, and back into my normal clothes I felt liberated. I felt free to make the choice. Men who act out, cat call and wolf whistle are not hurting me. They’re just showing the street how desperate they are. Might not be getting any because no woman wants such a dck head anyway! If i let them stop me wearing what i wanted to wear, then I might as well go back to Libya!

  94. katsudon says

    Considering my comment had no suggestion that there was some sort of single magical cause or that everything would be happy and fluffy if the patriarchy went away, I’m not sure what exactly you’re arguing with. On a personal level, I don’t really give a tinker’s cuss why men might like boobies. There’s a big difference between liking a woman’s boobies and treating a woman like she is nothing but her boobies.

  95. Brad says

    Liz, I agree with you that there are some bad eggs out there, and yes, I’ve heard of them through friends. They’re the minority though, the same as women who stalk. It happens, but it’s not the norm.Feminism, when practiced well, is a very good thing. Feminism when practiced poorly is a very, very bad thing. That’s when it becomes less about equality and more about the denigration and vilification of males.Through fear and hate, many of the militant feminists have convinced their addle-headed followers that men are horrid creatures that lurk in dark corners, just waiting for the opportunity to rape some innocent passer-by. For the amount of times that this actually does happen, I’m willing to bet the woman in question may have interacted pleasantly with hundreds if not thousands of males.Fear is a weapon, a system of control. This is why the media sensationalizes every little thing, blowing it out of proportion and turning each new news release into the next Armageddon (the mythical end of times, not the movie).

  96. Brad says

    Ah, and here I get to play the part of The Patriarchy (I hope I get some ominous robes, some evil theme music, or perhaps just a hat with the symbol of The Patriarchy on it).The simple fact of the matter is that Feminazi’s like yourself have had your sense of humor removed by the Feminist Overmind. I’m certain that at one point you laughed at jokes, understood irony, and perhaps even ran barefoot through the grass while wearing a beatific smile.Sadly, through no fault of your own, the Feminist Overmind got a hold of you, subjected you to their intense brainwashing procedures, gave you your standard issue flannel shirt and a set of Birkenstocks, and sent you out into the world to spread The Word.Unfortunately, The Word is about as credible as as cleavage being responsible for earthquakes. One day the Feminist Overmind will understand this, but for now Garciaja, I suggest growing out your crew cut, it might hide the lobotomy scars.

  97. says

    Ah, and here I get to play the part of The Patriarchy (I hope I get some ominous robes, some evil theme music, or perhaps just a hat with the symbol of The Patriarchy on it).Who’s going to design our website?

  98. says

    I have just posted over at CarnalNation, and I think Jen would appreciate this being repeated on her own blog. So, here it is:Am I the only one here who saw Jen’s exercise as a two-fingered salute to supernaturalist nonsense, and saw the bra ditching merely as a satirical device that ensured the popularity of her adventure?Yes, I happen to be male, and yes, I happen to find breasts appealing to look at, but when dealing with verminous and pestilential outpourings such as those issued by the ranting Iranian cleric, I prefer to engage my brain cells and not my genitals. And it was the ‘scientific experiment’ part of Jen’s exercise that made me smile the most. What better way to show up the ignorance and fulminating stupidity of this sponge-headed mullah, than to provide an empirical demonstration that he’s talking horseshit? THAT was what made me laugh the most, not “OMG boobies”. As someone who has been engaging in the business of flushing blind supernaturalist assertions and fatuous canards down the toilet for three years, this is my primary focus here, not ogling tits.And with respect to the sexual politics, here’s another point that seems to have been missed here. Misogyny is endemic to Abrahamic religions, and probably runs as a pernicious thread through some others as well. Snarky old men smelling of wee only get away with telling women how to run their lives, and to be ashamed of their bodies, because the blind assertions of supernaturalism continue to be accepted uncritically and given a wholly unwarranted privileged influence upon human affairs. The moment that the basic principle underlying supernaturalism as a whole – namely, that blind assertions about invisible magic men should be accepted as established fact, without ever being questioned – then anything becomes permissible, because that principle embodies the disengaging and atrophying of critical faculties. Attack that core notion, and everything that follows is open to scrutiny, including absurd and inhuman proclamations about women and their sexuality. The snarky old men smelling of wee only get away with telling women what to do, because they wield power through maintaining ignorance, and enforcing conformity to doctrines that frankly are nothing more than grand ideological masturbation fantasies. The moment the whole “accept uncritically my blind assertions about my magic man” nonsense is swept away, and people are allowed to find out about REALITY, instead of wasting their time with mythological excrement, then misogyny and inhuman attitudes toward women become far less tenable, not least because the women thus affected have a chance to learn what they need to deliver a rocket-propelled kick in the balls thereto. The reason we are able to point and laugh at the stupidity of mullahs is because, thankfully, we’ve learned enough about the real world to know that he’s talking through an orifice more usually associated with a more solid form of waste. Even if most of the women reading this don’t possess doctorates in geophysics, they’ve learned enough in science classes (assuming these haven’t been corrupted by other religious fantasists such as the loony creationists) to know what really causes earthquakes, and it isn’t their neither regions. THAT is what leads to misogyny being put in its place, giving women the tools to tell the bigots and the wankers where to get off, and the confidence to toss them and their shitty ideas into the bin. And if the end result is that women like Jen exercise that confidence and education to show up noxious supernaturalist poison for the intellectually bankrupt and perniciously malign influence that it is, and do so with an elegant comedy flourish, then shouldn’t we be welcoming this because it’s the right thing to do, instead of getting into a tizzy about boobs?That’s one reason I welcome Greta’s article, though as I said above, the REAL enemy is blind assertions accepted uncritically as established fact without question, because they are what led to the whole sorry erection of institutionalised misogyny in the first place. Without that, sad inadequates who compensate for their tiny dicks and even tinier minds through bluster and bullying would be consigned to eventual extinction.

  99. says

    You mean that it objectified women, and you weren’t getting any objectification action because you’re too small-breasted? Reminds me of the Jewish joke about the food being terrible, and such small portions…… :-)If it helps any, I myself prefer to look at smaller breasts, and have several male friends who feel exactly the same. Threshold values on request. Of course, I’m a European, and would be up for a friendly discussion of the American obsession with size; I have some ideas but am open to new ones.

  100. says

    Yes. At least two of her old college friends have used that kind of language in response to her stating that she likes to cook.Would your fiancée have been allowed to say that she liked to cook for herself when eating alone? I mean, is this because it is traitorous to keep company with or be civil to a male, or is it because cooking is in itself some sort of woo-woo that will cause little Somali girls to lose their clitorises?

  101. rabbitpirate says

    Excellently put. Personally I think of myself more as an equalist, but then that’s partly because it makes me feel like Edward Woodward.

  102. Christoph Franzen says

    Rachel,when I had the strong feeling that I had to leave a comment on the “boobquake” issue, I decided to readmost of the others first in order to be sure to actually contribute something new, or show it in another light, at least. Because your post already mentions some thoughts I also have in mind, I end up writing it as a reply to yours. It’s not a pure answer though, it was intended to stand on its own in the first place.I agree in some points with you, and disagree in others, as you’ll soon see…At first, however, I’d like to ask Jen to accept my appreciation for inventing “boobquake”, it’s an incredibly good idea.To begin with, men shouting “show us your tits” are indeed clearly not an unwanted side effect, such reactions are a requirement to make “boobquake” a success. It’s not only about feminist humour, but also a science driven project, and having no such reactions would logically interfere with the sience part of it.We do not know anything about the inner workings of God’s rage, so just having immodestly dressed women on the streets can only rule out that they are a sufficient cause for earthquakes on their own. As we all know, even sitting naked alone in a room at home is allowed. The whole thing turns into a sin as soon as other people can see the lack of clothing. While it is still possible that this sin alone might cause earthquakes, we must also test for the second one, men lecherously ogling them and being aroused. Only then we can also prove that women wearing immodest clothing don’t even *contribute* to earth quakes. I’m afraid, but the full proof is not possible without men participating.We should therefore make a second attempt in order to encourage more women and also men to actively participate. This is not as easy as it sounds, there are at least two problems to be solved.First of all, men could easily go out on that day to ogle and pester immodestly clothed women, but they’d be in danger to annoy and insult non-participants without their consent, which is against all ethics of science.While it is easy for women to choose a level of immodesty they are still comfortable with, and for men to choose a level of pestering they are able to burden their conscience with, men cannot easily determine what level of inappropriate male behaviour a woman would be willing to suffer from.Both issues were solved in a simple manner, if all participants wore signs with numbers on them. I suggest to use hexadecimal numbers to attract more geeks and nerds, starting with “0x0” (“I’m happy to support you, but my respect for human beings forbids me to adress women brazenly, not even for science’s sake.”/”Please treat me with all the respect I deserve.”), up to “0xF” (“Let’s misbehave, let’s do it here and now.”)The last one is only for reference, and must in fact be carefully avoided. If we assume that the aforementioned sins could possibly cause earthquakes, the sins of adultery and fornication are very likely to be able to cause them on their own, even without any immodestly dressed females involved. (Perhaps we should even number it “0x10”?)Last, but not least, I want to point out that we men in fact have a right of our own to participate in the falsification of this stupid theory. We are not programmed to anything any more than women are, hence this theory is severely insulting us.If you disagree with me, or find my posting inappropriate, well there’s a simple solution: put me amidst a group of beautiful, undressed women, and my brilliant thoughts will immediately collapse to the one sentence: “I want to fuck now.”

  103. says

    Enough with the ageism already. As a “snarky old man smelling of wee” I look forward eagerly to you becoming old enough to get an enlarged prostate too. We can’t help getting old and then probably smelling of wee, but that biological mechanism does not in itself cause us to talk nonsense. An old fool is just a young fool who has kept at it too long.

  104. PSMCD says

    I have to agree. I, too, love these qualities in a woman. I, too, have a great appreciation for a woman’s physical attributes as well. Here is where the flip side problem is. If I do catch myself watching a woman because she is beautiful, I fear that other people who catch me watching will jump to the conclusion that I only appreciate the physical attributes of a woman. I truly hate this because it means that it in effect limits my ability to appreciate these aspects. I cannot get to know every woman that I see, but those that I am able to get to know will also allow me the chance to appreciate their other qualities – their intelligence, personality, etc. … And, I do appreciate these qualities in all my friends, men and women (and kids too). But I hate feeling guilty for appreciating the beauty of women that I see. I am a hetero man and so have a natural tendency to like the look of women.

  105. Jo says

    Wrong. Actually, men rape because they are horny:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…Saying men rape because of cleavage is a bit of an overstatement, but it has a basis of truth – this is does not deprecate rape victims. I know Igot raped at 14 because I was wearing a cleavage and a mini skirt near the screening of a pornfilm that drove the guys berserk. Doesnt mean I was “asking for it”, or that it was my fault. It was their fault, they were the ones who acted like apes. But has nothing to do with power. Men want to fuck everything they see, it’s theyr nature. Women want to choose carefully their sex partners because they have more to invest in the offspring.

  106. 36D says

    Gracer — reading just a bit challenging for you then? No where do I say boobs are bad or genitalia is bad. I’m talking about the policed American media and what it deems appropriate and inappropriate. I believe that THAT cultural slant is a more compelling and relevant question than feminism at this point in time. That IS my belief, by the way. I claim it. But it looks to me like you had a good time writing that rant and that makes me happy.

  107. anonymous. says

    “Men want to fuck everything they see “, well thank you forstereotyping us all, actually you are quite wrong there, most us don’t want to do any such thing so don’t make such ridiculous generalisations. Rae An is basically correct rape is about power but that doesn’t preclude a large input of sexual desire and there is where you make your mistake, most men don’t find the idea of forced sex remotely attractive quite the reverse, which is why most of the men who commit rape are weird oddballs who most other men despise.

  108. Elizabeth Niederer says

    Oh Jo :-(. I’m so sorry you believe any kind of “because” about yourself, your location or behavior. Horny men can jack off. They don’t have to resort to rape. I hope that your belief just doesn’t come across accurately in writing. It was ALL them and NOTHING you, including your choice of clothing.

  109. says

    It’s wonderful for anyone to like anyone….as long as boundaries are observed. The intrusion is the problem (and I’m certain you know this), not the liking.

  110. says

    I was commenting on the extreme feminists who seem to view men as evil predators for looking at women and enjoying the view. There’s a very big distance between noticing and appreciating someone’s good looks and acting inappropriately… I was going to say “because of their good looks” but that’s looking at it the wrong way. More like “using someone’s good looks as an excuse to act inappropriately.”If a woman wants to flash some skin at the world, as a member of the world I am entitled to a look. It doesn’t make her a whore, or me a potential rapist, something that the extremists need to work out for themselves.

  111. katsudon says

    Strangely enough, I don’t think everything that I write in regards to being a feminist has to address men and women equally. What this is about is if women should give a crap if men are jerks about what we wear. While you could certainly parse that into a discussion about men (though why does something explicitly about how *women* are dealing with something have to come back to men?) that’s not what I wrote about, and really not what I’m interested in discussing. I don’t care for WoT.

  112. says

    I’ve never understood the idea that feminism transferred ownership of women’s bodies from their fathers, brothers, and husbands to a feminist ideology that had a nearly identical attitude about sexuality. I think women’s bodies should belong to the individual women themselves, and that they ought to be permitted to do as they please with them, whether it harelips a paternalistic society or politically correct crusaders or anyone else who happens along.That’s always been the rule for men, in spite of theology that one would expect to lead to a different result if the theocrats were consistent (a counterfactual hypothetical, of course).

  113. says

    @Jo:“Men are evil” feminists exist because they were abused by evil men, like getting raped for showing cleavages..Yes, that happens, but it is so not the only explanation of this or any other chauvinism. It’s about cognitive attribution. Have you ever lived in an expat community? If so, you will have noticed that the expats abstract all undesirable human features and behaviour and attribute them to the host nation. The payoff from this is narcissistic self-admiration. If all bad human qualities pertain to ethnicity or gender X, and I am not an X, then I have no bad qualities, woot woot. Corollary: if I have no bad qualities, because all bad things come from the plumbing that I don’t have, then nothing bad that happens to me can be my fault. (I’m not talking about rape here, I have in mind people who act in an uncouth manner and then get indignant at others’ failure to accept them as they are.) Second corollary: if nothing is ever my fault, then I cannot ever be criticised. Nice work if you can get it: such a package is tempting to everyone, which is why we see chauvinisms of both sexes, all the races and religions. The price is, of course, intellectual suicide and ethical bankruptcy, but this is one many individuals are willing to pay.

  114. says

    When you transition from “Oooh, pretty, maybe I’ll talk to her!” to “Holy Tits Batman! Wait, there’s a human being attached to those? Nah, that’s just the carrier for the tits.” Or even worse, to “Oh man, BOOBS. Let’s slip something in her drink so I can see them later, WOOOOOOOO”Well, I’m the first kind of man — or rather, the kind before that, since I wouldn’t actually try to talk to her — and I agree with everything you say. It’s basic Kant/Buber, treat the Other as an end not a means. Now, many people have made the distinction rest on attitude, but I think it’s disingenuous, because it only considers the man’s inner state, which is largely unknowable. What replaces this, epistemologically, is attribution. That is, if the man is attractive you (plural) attribute to him the thought that he is approaching you as a whole person. If he is unattractive you attribute to him the perception of you only as a tit-carrier.

  115. says

    Why does it have to be to do with men at all? Women compete with one another, and when choosing clothes women ignore anything thought by their significant men in favour of what some strange female says. Verdad? So, is showing boobage saying “Come get your milkshake, guys” or is it saying, “Eat your hearts out, loser-girls”? If huge furry eyebrows gave women the feeling that they were making other women feel miserable, there would be a whole industry of falsie eyebrows, and probably a Fisherian runaway process culminating in eyebrows that needed titanium rigging. Personal affidavit: I detest all sartorial competition and sexual display, and would be entirely happy if everyone, men and women, wore Mao-suits, or Franciscan habits.

  116. says

    A complementary P.S. to my lines and suggestions elsewhere in the thread. There are two kinds of people in the world, those that divide others into two groups and ….. ooops, sorry, start again. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think zero-sum and those who don’t. For a zero-sum thinker, there is a fixed quantity of happiness in the world, and if you get some, it is necessarily at my expense. Ergo, if a zero-sum thinker owns boobs, and we notice and appreciate them, then our share of this fixed quantity has risen. Consequently, her share has fallen. A non-zero-sum thinker, of course, will not feel personally disadvantaged and deprived by others having a moment of joy. May it please the Court, this explains a LOT. Of course, Mencken was here first.

  117. says

    And as someone who happens to be on the verge of this myself, I think I’m entitled to let fly with such invective, so keep your sanctimonious finger wagging to yourself.

  118. says

    If you’re on the verge of it yourself, why the absurd put-down? We can all diss the Ayatollahs without bringing geriatric medicine into it, as I tried to say in my second paragraph. Sedighi was young once, but probably still a jerk. If you can find santimonious finger-wagging in my post, then whatever the state of your prostate you have better eyesight than anyone else. Or perhaps better imagination. If you think being elderly entitles you to invective, then I, being probably older than you, am even more entitled, so keep your illiteracy and bad temper to yourself.

  119. Matt says

    Have mercy, folks, regarding the female breast. Breasts are great. I love them. So do a lot of women AND men. We also love legs, arms, rears, the small of the back, shoulders, eyes, mouths and about a dozen other visually appealing aspects of both the male and female bodies. Without the wonder of visual cues, it’d be a wonder if the human race was actually able to reproduce.But all ranting aside, I would say that the act of “objectifying” women is as incumbent on the woman being objectified as the objectifier. Politeness and courtesy are virtues – not nice to ogle. But caring about what other people think of you is a trip toward the dark side, I think. Big, small, thin, fat, tall short, round, oblong…as transitory and finite as the physical self is, there is a glory in it as well, that should reflect the infinite in ourselves – not even a in spiritual way per se, but just in the simple fact that we as finite beings that can conceptualize eternity. Anything else puts a light under a basket.I propose that we be ourselves without regret, and reserve only enough mercy for others’ sensitivities as we can accept willingly.

  120. mybabysweetness says

    I think I LOVE Greta Christina. Seriously! I don’t usually call myself a feminist and she articulated exactly why it’s never felt like the right moniker for me. I always said I didn’t want someone TELLING ME I had to stay at home with a baby. But then I had one and it turns out I kind of love her and want to spend a lot of time with her, so I work part time and have put my career a bit on hold. BECAUSE I WANT TO. There are lots of things I do or believe that are not traditionally feminist – and I’m just so glad I have the freedom to do that.

  121. mybabysweetness says

    One more thought. I’ve realized how very naiive I am to be surprised by all the negative reactions to boobquake when it all seemed so obvious to me – meet the ridiculous with the ridiculous to prove how, well, ridiculous the first was – so that even the cleric who said it has to start to feel like an idiot. But then (some) feminists start to question the political nature of your satire.All I can say is – with this many people annoyed, you know you did a damn good job! Brilliant!

  122. says

    well I’m the fiancée. Their thought was that “so many woman have fought and suffered so that women are not relegated to the kitchen, so how dare you willing go back in, and to make it worse you’re cooking for a man?!” Totally forgetting that the whole thing was about having a choice.

  123. tessm says

    I believe Terry Pratchett’s Patrician, Vetinari, has a crest: can’t remember all the details but it is all black-on-black. So, I volunteer to design your website, as even I can manage that one! :)

  124. Darryl says

    Interesting Each of us have stories we tell ourselves. Stories from the past, and it affects everything we do, from that point on.I hear a story, of ridicule and self hatred. Looking in the mirror and loathing. Seeing the buxomy ladies, and feeling anger and maybe even hatred.I wonder how many times you told yourself lies – I am small breasted, and I am not good enough.You are intelligent, well read, creative. I don’t know your looks, but would not hesitate to like you.Now you have gotten angry again (if this quote is not misconstrued “It pissed me off ALL OVER AGAIN.”)at ladies who are OK with the way they look.Wow.I bet you almost shake at the thoughts. I bet your jaw and hands are clenched as you think of, and see the reports of, Boobquake. Do the tears come?Do you shout out – NO MORE CLEAVAGE! ? Does it hurt that much?It wants to control you, that set of lies about your body.You are a lady, a human, and beautiful.You can wear as much or as little as makes you comfortable.Your anger will always be with you. If you accept that, you can learn to see it as it happens, and not let it control you,Wouldn’t that be such a cool thing? Not to be an object, but to be a person? Not to be controlled, but to be happy.I think you would like that.

  125. Darryl says

    Tee HeeDaemon You funneee guy…You make joke,,, calling yourself “me”….We already know it you, Daemon

  126. Darryl says

    Brad nailed it… Ms garciaja missed the point.Se didn’t even bother to read the comments FROM Iran.WowSo every joke, mockery and jest done has to be for the better good of mankind?Hm.

  127. says

    Refer to:”Women ought not to display our sexuality—because men can’t be trusted. In the presence of a display of desirable female flesh, men will lose control of themselves. Women ought to dress modestly, and ought not to encourage other women to dress immodestly… and if we persist in our immodesty, and men respond by behaving badly, it’s women’s fault.”I should say: Bingo! You got the point. This is exactly what I have heard thousands of times from Islamic Extremists. This quote is their main rational for Hijab and all other obsessions.This is why I believe SOME women just re-badged FUNDAMENTALISM in a more modern term called FEMINISM.

  128. Darryl says

    Gee, I hope you aren’t marking Jen’s papersOr if you are,Lets hope that Jen’s papers don’t give you the gift of “What in the world…???!!!”

  129. Darryl says

    Well done Jo You have insulted 1/2 of the Humans on this planet.It would be satisfying to hear you apologize. However, I think I can wait until you have a good heart-to-heart with a friend. A real friend.

  130. Darryl says

    Jo It isn’t hat you have been annoying.You have been insulting.There is a difference in that behavior.

  131. Darryl says

    If you are true to yourself, and believe that each human deserves respect as a person, then you do not need a label.You are already there.And, if you wish, can help both genders learn personal respect.

  132. says

    The “men are evil” type feminists weren’t all abused. They simply are extremists–and extremists get to where they are for all sorts of different reasonsNow that is a profoundly wise remark.

  133. says

    @Julie: I have less experience of nudism than The naked atheist, who may consequently come and correct me, but here’s a suggestion: Clothes are signals, that’s what they’re for, outwith climates where they are necessary to prevent you freezing to death. This signalling is about (a) social status and (b) sexual availability and interest. People who say that they can wear whatever they want without signalling interest are being disingenuous. If I shout “fire!” in the proverbial crowded theatre, it is dishonest of me then to claim that this is mere words and I should be free to say any words I want. I have delivered a message, and so must take the consequences of my communication. In the sexual case, the consequences will be that other men will think you’re telling them that you’re up for it with them. Conceited of them, no doubt, personally I never make that assumption, but a lot of individuals, of both sexes, are inordinately conceited. Probably because the others never got laid and so are not ancestors. No, I’m not saying they are then entitled to jump you, so hold that silencing technique; just that there is a communications mismatch going on, which always means trouble. If you go on the town scantily clad, I assume you are signalling to somebody that you want them to take an interest. To whom? Not everyone, clearly, but everyone is still receiving the signal and wondering how to process it. This is also a problem. Now, I don’t know how nudists signal availability and interest levels, but it can’t be by their clothing, by definition. Naked atheist, how is it done? Perhaps nudism never catches on widely because non-sartorial signalling is too difficult and so people prefer to stick with the familiar, where a Rolex means this, and unbuttoned blouses mean that. They think it’s very simple, although of course it isn’t really. So to answer your final question, my suggestion is that non-nudity is a rule so that our clothes may signal our intentions.

  134. says

    Simply that it’s equality being talked about I mean if there were 4 sexes there would be as many sided arguments on the various pressures each feels how it affects actions etc etc. Feel like theirs a comment about revolving doors here somewhere lol.Anywho to talk about one group even one in a disparaging state only advocating a single side with a blind eye to the other(s) is by nature biasing. Any solutions that could be created through such a process are naturally not going to account for the other factors. So when said process is tried it either fails or does unintended harm to the aforementioned unaccounted factors. So I was just wondering how wide your view is, that’s all. Don’t care for WoT? Damn thought I had a bite there with the Tinker ref and women empowerment and all. I like the Wisdom’s character quite a bit.

  135. katsudon says

    Actually, I’m not talking about equality per se *at this moment*. All I’m saying that if my fellow feminists are worried about being controlled by the patriarchy, then letting the existence of the patriarchy stop you from doing something you want means that you’re being controlled by it as surely as if you were doing something specifically because the patriarchy wants you to.Not every feminist conversation has to cover ever freaking base about equality or about sex versus gender or about any of that stuff. Sometimes we talk about very specific things, just like you can about any topic.

  136. says

    @Rob Philip: Which, of course, still didn’t and doesn’t make *ME* evil. Being treated poorly because of my gender by a “men are evil” feminist is indistinguishable from a woman being treated poorly because of her gender. Oi, Rob, you’re forgetting something. A misandrist is responding rationally to being maltreated by men, whereas a misogynist cannot possibly be responding rationally to being maltreated by women, since women never maltreat anybody. His misogyny just wells up from deep inside, like volcanic magma, without any causes on the surface. Only women are subject to causation, in that their attitudes are caused by things outside themselves, such as male action. But female action has no causative power over men. Now then, if men affect women but women do not affect men, men must be uncontingent, unconditioned, that is to say ontologically superior. In other words, men are the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, which the scholastics identified with God. This rather surprising conclusion follows directly from rad-fem theory.

  137. resigned says

    “If we wear turtlenecks because the patriarchy likes boobies”the patriarchy likes boobies! OMG !so lets attack this enemy, the patriarchy! But damn, it’s everywhere!Now that some profound explanation of societies workings.Why do I always get the impression that feminists are paranoid shit-for-brains…

  138. resigned says

    I couldn’t agree more.I thought it was a joke that there could be feminists who would complani about this, when people try to defend us from religious sexist idiocy, but as it seems, some types of feminists have always something to mourn about…The only explanation why they fail to see the obdious is given in my rude comment above… sigh.Damn me for being equally “profound” in knowing an answer to that :-DBut really… who in their right mind is not able to see what’s going on there…The owner of this blog said it all, lke she was reading my mind, I instantly thought whether, in their ability for twisted logic, these feminists were somehow able to convert to Islam meanwhile, and are this defending these woman-hating religious nutters.

  139. katsudon says

    You win today’s “totally missing the point” prize! Congratulations!

  140. resigned says

    “On a personal level, I don’t really give a tinker’s cuss why men might like boobies. There’s a big difference between liking a woman’s boobies and treating a woman like she is nothing but her boobies.”Your drivel sounds like you are always implying the latter, though.If I misclassified you as “that sort of feminist” then I apoligize for my rudeness, otherwise, not :-P I’m fed up with the seas full of idiocy in that movement. (and sexism)

  141. says

    Really? I’d be surprised, since that’s a Second Declension plural, but the singular is absolutely not “clitorus”, is it now? “Clitoris” looks like a Third Declension to me, goes like crisis, so the plural would be “clitores”. Which I’ve never seen anywhere. Either because no one is so pedantic, or for some other reason. That’s why I decided to go for an English plural formation. Beware also the people who think that the plural of “virus” is “viri”. It belongs to a declension of Latin nouns with -us in the singular and -us (longer vowel, should have a bar across) in the plural. But that would be impractical. So that the simple souls who say “viruses” are actually a lot sounder than the wannabes. Now write it out a thousand times. :-)

  142. Roma says

    I’m a woman, and I personally have a few issues with this line of thinking, and the general discussion of feminism with regard to clothing and sexuality. To start, I don’t understand why women equate their dressing in a revealing manner with expression of their sexuality. Boobs are not sexuality. Ass is not sexuality. These are body parts and nothing else. I feel like if you (and I say “you” in the general sense; anyone) see this as your sexuality, then you’ve objectified yourself before you even walked out the door. And why is there such a desire to “express sexuality” in public? I love to express my sexuality. There’s no shame, no repression here. I love to explore and express this part of myself regularly…with my husband. My sexuality isn’t something that the public could see even if I tried to show it to them (because it’s not just my body), but even if it was, I wouldn’t do it. Why do we believe it’s necessary to “express our sexuality” at the coffee shop? At work? Walking down the street? At the restaurant? I feel like this is where women are the ones behaving somehow inappropriately as these are not sexual venues. I don’t see men expressing their “sexuality” at Starbucks.; if they did, they’d get arrested. Yet somehow, there’s a group of women who feel it’s their job to wander through public letting the whole world know “I’m a sexual being and I have boobs. No, seriously, let me show you”. I don’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, I used to, at times, dress in a more revealing style myself. My style changed, and this type of stuff no longer fit into what I liked to see on myself. But you can bet that when I did dress that way, I got all sorts of rude male attention, and when I stopped, so did they. This was just an added bonus as the men were not the reason for my change in style. I still look good, I still feel good; I like my clothes, and I’m even able to look sexy if that’s what I choose to do…but I do so in a way that isn’t revealing to the people who don’t need to see me, and -voila! – no more gross behavior from the guys. The point is that you can’t control anybody but yourself. If women don’t like these comments or gestures, they certainly have the right to feel that way, but they can’t control the offenders. When you make the decision put yourself – and certainly your “sexuality” – on public display, you’re inviting attention and you don’t get to pick and choose what type of attention comes your way. This is true for feminists, celebrities, politicians, and hell – street performers. It is the nature of our world. And certainly, I’m not talking about violations of physical space (groping, rape, etc.), but comments and cat calls, and what not. You can’t have it both ways. I feel like what I’m hearing from certain women is “yeah, hi, these are my boobs. Just want you to know that I have them, and that I’m a sexual being, in case there was any doubt. This is just me expressing myself to the world. You’re welcome to enjoy it, but only on my terms, or else”. It’s childish. I guess I just feel that somewhere along the way, some of the women who call themselves feminists (I don’t because certain women have trashed that word) have bcome a little confused. Yes, we’re sexual; no, this is not shameful. Yes, our bodies are beautiful and we’re free to dress them as we please. Yes, we enjoy expressing our sexuality and don’t have to repress it to fit into some weird, old image of what women “should be”. Yes, yes, yes – all of that. But no(!), you can’t complain about men objectifying you when you objectify yourself first. No(!), you can’t go out into the world on a quest to show your sexuality to all, and then complain when men you don’t like show their “appreciation” in a manner you deem crude (even if it really is crude). No, no, no. I mean…yes…you can. Without question, I support a woman’s right to do all of that…but I don’t think one can reasonably expect to be taken seriously. Just my opinion.

Leave a Reply