.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

2010 - Welcome to the Future!
............Site Feed............ ............Main............ ..........Blogroll Me..........

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Effeminism Lives

From Wittingshire, via Dave the physicist, some hearsay:

"Why do girls go around in bikinis?" he groused. "Of all the dumb things to wear."

This struck me as funny, which provoked him still further.

"It's just like underwear," he said. "They wouldn't go walking down the street in their underthings, would they? So why go around in bikinis?"

"Girls wear bikinis because boys like them," I said.

He stopped short and stared at me, incredulous.

"Not boys your age," I went on. "Teenagers, and grown up men. They think women look pretty in bikinis--but that doesn't mean they think women should wear them in public."

He was still staring at me, utterly flabbergasted. Finally he found his tongue: "It disturbs me," he said formally, "that you are telling me that one day I will think girls look pretty in bikinis. That disturbs me. I know what I think, and I don't think that."
Despite my puritanical streak, I'm a bit of a closet nudist. You can easily read Genesis to see unnecessary clothing as a sin. Clothes, no clothes, whatever. They're practical. I don't see how a miniskirt or thong underwear is evil in and of itself.

So I don't have a problem with, say, lowrise jeans because they show an extra inch of skin. All fashion is only relative to last year's.

I have a problem with the fact that they are worn specifically to sell sex. I mean, why is this necessary? Did men recently start saying to themselves, "Gee, I'm glad that woman is dressed modestly. Now I may think chaste thoughts and concentrate on work."

There was no question mark there because I know darn well we don't think that.

Well, regardless of the effectiveness, I just don't see inciting lust and whatnot as a good thing. Besides the morality, the pernicious influence of useless ornamentation on our evolution, and the decreased productivity on casual Friday, there is an Effeminist problem:

Women dressing to attract mates- even when they have no intention of mating- promotes the social schism that says men are productive and women are here to breed. There is biological truth to this, but if a woman has 3 kids, that takes 3 years at most from her working lifetime. (Bear with me.) Since women tend to live longer, that means the biological necessity of giving birth and nursing makes no difference as far as careers go... And what else is there? Economic power is equivalent to social and political power.

Ok, there is the small issue of raising the kids. There are however, viable alternatives to having the biological mother quit working to raise them. 50 hours of daycare per week is NOT a viable alternative, by the way.

There is the father, there are elderly freeloaders, there is the possibility of alternating schedules between parents, there is communal child raising. All have been successful. It depends on the goals of the family. The stay-at-home 1954 mother is fine if that's what they want.

My point was, we should not perpetuate a false divide between genders that goes any farther than biological reality does.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home