October 27, 2010
The small town of Castellammare di Stabia near Naples has imposed fines on women who wear tiny miniskirts, extremely revealing tops and low-slung jeans. The mayor of the town, Luigi Bobbio, said not all miniskirts are affected by the ordinance passed last weekend, “just the really slutty ones.”
According to Blast Magazine, Bobbio said, “the skirt is absolutely allowed and permitted. The regulation, how easily you can guess if you do not fall into the easy manipulation, is not aimed at banning this or that piece of clothing, but to give the city and precise coordinates of the citizens of civilized behavior to respect the freedom of each and therefore the freedom of all. ” His point in this mangled translation appears to be that too much exposed skin undermines a sense of order.
There is local opposition to the new measure. “By equating women’s clothing with urban decorum, this measure implies women are no more than benches or hedges,” said councillor Angela Cortese in The Guardian. The idea that the new ordinance would protect women from sexual harrassment was not persuasive, she said.
Lydia Sherman has asked her readers to write to Bobbio in support.
— Comments —
“The idea that the new ordinance would protect women from sexual harrassment was not persuasive, she said.”
What about the idea that “too much” exposed flesh is actually — and by intention of the women who do it — sexual harassment of us men?
Totally agree with Ilion. All that exposed flesh is at best distracting, and at worst an assault on our manhood.
Good on that Italian town for seeking to impose some standards for modesty. They’re probably just minimal standards, of course, and I suppose some will argue that “sluttiness” is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever. My wife says that when a people’s internal filtration system, moral fibre — or just plain character — has gone haywire, it’s time for rules and regulations. Bring out the tape measures, she says. And send the ladies home to cover themselves before returning to work. (Or church, for that matter.)
My company has a dress policy, which stresses respect for fellow workers. It’s largely disregarded. Hmmm … could it be that the HR department, which is for the most part led and staffed by women, has no desire to upset the sisterhood?
Of course, judging from the conversations in the men’s locker room (we have a health club downstairs), the guys get a kick out of the whole thing, and the most successful males, with big money and nice families and positions of responsibility descend to the level of lascivious schoolboys in talking about women. I think that’s all just the usual blarney. Deep down, they don’t want their wives and daughters dressing like whores. My sense is that, if standards were legislated (and not in a Muslim direction, but in a plain old white, commonsense, Judeo-Christian direction) they would not object — and might even silently applaud.
A reader writes:
Ilion is onto something.
Men could sue because of scantily-dressed women causing them to feel sexually harrassed and for creating a hostile work environment.
The primary reason women — understand that I’m using that word for lack of a more accurate one; the ‘women’ I’m talking about are not really women, for the single most important aspect of womanhood, as with manhood, is maturity, and the sort of ‘woman’ I’m talking about has her mind still in junior high-school — do so many of the strange things they do is status-competition with other women; even if the competition is entirely within the mind of the individual woman.
In this competition, men are just the chits by which score is kept.
Women like to bitch that “society” (meaning men) “forces” them to abuse their bodies and health … and moral sensibilities. Feminism, being anti-male, encourages, justifies, and reinforces this irrational behavior. But, in fact, the reason women abuse their bodies and health and moral sensibilities is status-competition with other women.
Consider a typical modern office — the men have to wear ties (for that’s part of the uniform of professionality), and the women dress … pretty much as they want; which, over time, devolves into as skimpily clothed as they think can get away, in the eyes of other women, with due to their age.
Now, men, being generally larger than women, by which I mean more massive, tend to over-heat more quickly than women. And, that tie makes it worse for us.
So, the men — who are over-heating, and therefore not functioning to their capabilities — want the air-conditioning to lower the ambient temperature a degree or two. But, the women, who are in various states of undress, want the temperature higher.
Dressing properly, or putting on a sweater, is, in their minds, not an option. This is especially true if the office-head is a woman.
And, when one of the men tries to point out that he cannot think clearly (and that is what he’s being paid to do) because he’s over-heating, the women (especially if the head of the office is herself one of the skimpily-clad women) will give him a dismissive hand wave and say something like, “Oh, you’re just a man.”
Now, those women will all claim that they are dressed that way because men “make” them do it. Yet, their dismissive attitude toward actual men belies the claim.
“[T]he reason women abuse their bodies and health and moral sensibilties is status-competition with other women.”
Women do try to appeal to men, but I generally agree that feminists blame men for beauty standards that are enforced by women. It’s not simply “status competition,” as many women don’t particularly want to dominate their friends, but the normal desire to be liked and to form a network of friends.
Clothing has gotten skimpier the more manly, or neutered, women have become.
Lydia Sherman writes:
I noticed on some of the message areas below the news reports on various sites, that eventually people accused the new law of taking them back into the dark ages by making women wear long veils. One commenter even accused the new law of outlawing the making of sandcastles on the beach. Typical of every revisionist is this exaggeration of a decision or announcement, designed to sound extreme enough to cause outrage. Never is the original problem addressed. The city managers were simply trying to do something about the extremists who insist on being practically naked on the beaches. Perhaps their new law, which I am told by an Italian resident will not be enforced, will attract a new kind of tourist, as families seek to find safe vacation spots where their eyes will not be assaulted with the latest shock-wear.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized