Thus what began here: THE SPARK
And should have ended here: THE SOURCE
Ended here: THE COMMENTARY
Which fortunately brought me to this: THE END
So reader, what I am trying to teach you is that only when you find the source, can you rest at the end of your investigation. Simple enough of a rule. Fortunately I have the good sense to restrain my enthusiasm for these hot-button sparks until I have overcome my laziness. You may rest assured that as a rule, I strive to stay silent. All good fools do.
That said. silence does this commentary, nor the topic no justice. So. Pull up another window of the commentary mentioned above and we'll lay to rest the better part of this writer's nearsightedness in order:
First the perspective is flawed:
"The better message is this: wear what you want, like, and feel comfortable in, not for its effect on other people, but so that you can be happy and free as you go about doing many good things in the world. And stop judging other people for what they wear as they go about living their lives, because it’s none of your business and it’s not about you."
The Author of this statement would have us believe that they are but a simple independent party, beholden only to the desire to pursue their own dreams and ambitions. And so long as they are able to do this, they won't hurt a soul, and everyone will be happy. Yet whilst holding all the trappings of westernized individualism. Her stance is unrealistic. First of all she accuses others of judging, exhorting them to stop. But her subject matter revolves around reaction, not judgment. They are in fact separate but related entities. I can stop myself from punching my sister when she startles me. I cannot stop myself from being startled. Secondly, her complete selfishness in wearing what she wants relies upon it being a victim-less decision. It isn't. I'm sure she would like to think that human beings being visual creatures (interestingly the subject of our source) can all look the other way and not judge. But the reality is that they will look and will react. I can't assure you on the judgment issue.
You see the author want's to detach herself from the obligation of social living, by condemning other people who will interact with her, and they often will simply because it IS a social environment. Her ideals work well in the lonely swimming pool of an abandoned town. But they are impractical anywhere else. If anything concerns me it is her complete disregard for the impact she has on others. Yes it's all well and good at fending off the guilt trips of the 'modest' police. But at their heart they are very anti-community and horribly antagonistic.
Ultimately, the speaker is promoting her own swimwear line, and her suits and promotional materials seem quite lovely. I applaud her good business sense and style, but I disagree strongly with her methods of self-promotion. Rey's speech is very problematic, for several reasons. First, she's misrepresenting the Princeton study she relies on for most of her argument. Most social science research is easy to misinterpret to serve one’s own ends, and this study is no exception.
We'll address these two in concert:
I'm not sure what saddens me more. That this fact of salesmanship is the underpinning of much of her objection, or that it required a saleswoman to make this subject noticed again. A few observations of my own: Ms. Rey's success, if she has any, is an indication that the market has a need that she is meeting. Ms. Rey's willingness to exercise her values in her product is not a vice it is a virtue. Ms. Rey's ability to be a social impetus in her business is what your 'free-market' theory is all about. Yes it would appear that the one time capitalism actually is less than corrosive, pushing the virtues that every red-blooded newspaper economist insists it will "if only the market desires it" You immediately get the moralists complaining that the change is somehow 'tainted' by its affiliation in business! No wonder your world remains unchanged. You can't expand your views of ministry beyond what people mail-in or throw in the plate!
You can go to the source of this post if you desire for part two. What I found interesting was just how long-winded researchers can be. It must be a trapping of over-verbose letter writing from the Victorian era. I can see no other reason to waste so much time on an introduction, unless you are trying to impress the writer of your grants...
"The study in question, presented by Dr. Susan Fiske at Princeton, was conducted using a sample of 21 male Princeton undergraduates (note that in this type of research, an acceptable sample size is 30+, and that the more data points you have, the more reliable your findings). These men were asked to fill out surveys that gauged if they harbored "benevolent sexism" (i.e. women should be protected by men, women should not work outside the home) or "hostile sexism" (i.e. women are incompetent and inferior to men, women are trying to take away the rights of men, etc.). They were then shown brief flashes of pictures of fully clothed and swimsuit-clad men and women, and their brains were scanned for activity. Note that all the swimsuit-clad women were wearing bikinis. The researchers did not use pictures of women in "various states" of undress, or with "varying amounts" of clothes, as some articles have suggested, and there were no one-piece swimsuits to compare--there were only two conditions: fully clothed and in a bikini. Please also note that the images of women wearing bikinis did not have heads."
If indeed this is the study: "look at me" and I believe it is. Then the study was a coupling of two. The first was a survey of sexism followed by rating of photos this was taken online (see, if you read the source that is a summary of several paragraphs, clearly I'd do Princeton a service writing their reports). The second was another survey of sexism followed by an FMRI of the brain while face and body images were shown. The survey for both was rating them on hostile or benevolent sexism. Interestingly both should have the feminist dander up. HS basically thinks women are all Potiphar's wife or worse, and BS would have every man confused between their wives and daughters. Just goes to show that anyone caught cataloging the human element is privy to an abundance of outliers and little better than that. The Author seems to think that 30 is a magic number because it somehow mitigates small grouping conflicts. While I think a "more is better" argument can readily be made for this, given the subject material, 21 males in the the FMRI is a sound test count. I have a secret for you reader, we're more alike in this stuff than not, regardless of our age and our backgrounds.
Moving on: What our dear commentator is too hurried to discount in fact holds the single detail that is novel to the audience.
"This is hardly an earth-shattering finding--that men who are generally horrible to women, when presented with headless images from a swimsuit catalog, do not see the models as people, and have parts of their brains light up that are associated with "things you manipulate with your hands" (which should tell you what these college boys are doing with their free computer time, not make you reevaluate your choice of swimwear)."
So here is a new consideration: The correlation between men with Hostile Sexism and a propensity for discounting the humanity of women can just as easily imply that HS is a symptom of exposure to women in sexualized clothing, rather than an instigator of the reaction.
Here is what the commentator reads:
HS => Men => bikini => objectify women
Here is what the study says
HS = Men => bikini => objectify women
Now bear with me:
If bikini is a stimulus and HS is a correlation. rather than an instigator Then isn't it likely that the stimuli could be a creator of HS, rather than HS necessarily being present before the stimuli?
So what we really have is the argument:
bikini = HS
The reasoning is this: the outcome of the formula is the same. So we can set that as a concrete concern. The reason I can make the correlation between bikini and HS is because those were the stimuli and the personality factor that the study relied on. the existence of BS in the study (benevolent sexism, remember?) is how we know that men cannot be independently blamed for objectifying women. (e.g. benevolent sexism proves that "not all men objectify women" ) you must keep bikini or HS. Bikini must remain because it is the stimuli and removing HS would ignore the correlation denoted by BS, forcing us to call the study a wash, or to blame men for being objective naturally. Ergo we can consider the relationship of HS and bikini to be linked.
If they are linked strongly enough then bikini and HS can be interchanged. Which in the nature of sexual desire makes perfect sense. Anyone who is exposed to images that are construed as expecting certain behaviors from the observer will see in themselves a draw to reconcile the two by participation. We see this simply in the form of the office candy jar... the candy is there for a reason, you should eat it, few people can ignore it without determination to do so. Yet, the real harm of sex driven advertising isn't that women in bikini's are bad, it is that the variety of women in bikinis impress the following into the male mindset:
1) The sexual reaction is prompted by a variety of women, undermining healthy composure within the realm of monogamy.
2) The messages associated with these images undervalue relationship and prey upon the existence of arousal with which the man reacts.
Basically they are designed to elevate sex, above relationship. And so down go the man's thoughts who goes to a pool or a beach.
I see a scantily clothed woman and what the author would have me do is to squelch all sexual response in that instance. I can do that no more easily than I can be stop being startled by my sister. How do I come close? I put myself in her father's shoes.. or, I look away. I see a lot of sky at the water park, it's easier.You see, that sort of approach to temptation is in fact what makes a man a BS rather than an HS. Realizing reactions and what we as men can do to correct/control them is a trait of BS. HS is in fact un-tethered sexuality, which when it runs its course, is just as selfish and unconcerned with our social communities as women who would rather remain ignorant to the fact that men see sex as a constant objective. (please read the study: p. 543, Participants)
Moving on:
"I also take issue with the speaker’s highly selective overview of the history of women’s swimwear. She skips over the Romans, who bathed nude and are depicted in murals wearing clothing very similar to a bikini. She skips over the many cultures in which topless and nude bathing are seen as perfectly respectable and natural. "
One must have a poor idea of time-lines to suggest that Ms. Rey skipped over a society which was not even included in the span of her synopsis. Considering the subject audience to which she was speaking, including the Romans: a hedonistic pagan culture would seem a rabbit trail worth avoiding. But I have no such issue with tangents, and will gladly embark on this one. The reason the Romans are to be omitted is because it was just this sort of immodest culture that developed a cultist society where priestesses were 'holy' prostitutes. Take a look at Corinth after the turn of the century and explain to me in what way is this complete indifference to the human relationship any better than your "wolf!" of draconian modesty? In fact early Christians, the bedrock of our modest notions, were hard pressed on all sides, trapped in a society with very opposing ideas of sexuality, nudity and holiness. On this count, the author undermines her own agenda:
"I think, however, that this presentation swings too far in the other direction, and I am disappointed with its message, especially when I see it in the context of a rising emphasis on modesty that also devalues women, though more insidiously. Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure. "
Indeed would not Roman hedonism (and bathing) be an untenable platform for moderation in dress? Now, as for the 'cultural' worldview. Lets all agree that despite growing notions of globalization, there is a distinct disregard for decent dress that has become inherent in Western Culture (that would be the subject audience of Ms. Rey's presentation) If you would like to use the child's complaint of "so and so gets to!" to justify your sensibilities of dress, then go ahead. However what Ms. Rey's presentation did a very good job of was explaining how a single style was once rejected and then adopted by a modest society full of typically Caucasian conservatives. Her history proved her point remarkably well: I get to see much more of a show than my great-grandfather did. As for the rest of the world's cultures, while neither here nor there in relation to this topic, they are certainly evidence that healthy respectability is not directly reliant upon dress. C.S. Lewis was even kind enough to point this out in sweeping confidence in Mere Christianity. So rest well reader, the natives are not hell-bound because they are topless, any more than I am for my arrogance, Lord willing.
The one punch in this whole commentary follows:
"Pioneer women would find capri pants scandalous. That doesn’t mean we need to compare bare ankles to stripping. Your great-great grandmother would find your one-piece swimsuit inappropriate, while you label it perfectly modest. But we live in different times and cultures, and there are no absolute rules for determining what is “modest” across all time and space. (As proof, I would note that the speaker, believer in modesty, is dressed in a perfectly lovely outfit, one that would nevertheless get me labeled “immodest” and kicked out of class at BYU—for showing my shoulder. So if you’re about to argue that “the world changes, but the Lord’s standards of modesty never change,” you may want to re-think your argument. And your spokesperson.)"
Finally the author strikes a blow. By showing the dangers of extremism, she tricks you into thinking that complaining of exposure not only makes you no worse than the conservative ideals of yesteryear, but also would force you to cover your shoulders AND your ankles. Sly move on her part, however not necessarily to the point. It's a good thing I haven't suggested that I know the Lord's standard.
"Here's the truth: Men are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Father. Women are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Mother. Our bodies are beautiful and God-given, not shameful. They connect us to the earth and to each other. They allow us to relate to each other in enjoyable ways. They are also not the only way we relate to each other. Men and women are capable of relating to each other as human beings, no matter what they're wearing. This is part of being an adult. We are capable of dealing with our sexual desires, which are normal and healthy and good, without shaming ourselves or those with whom we come in contact. Fetishizing normal female body parts--be they breasts, navels, shoulders, knees, or (gasp!) ankles—and insisting they be covered because we cannot control ourselves—does real harm to both women and men.(1)"
And the follow up to that last statement is in fact the beginning of my point. I'll spare you the theological flaws of the first three sentences. But allow me to draw out the dichotomy of the original sentiment put forth: " I do what I want so long as I don't hurt anyone" to the above paragraph, which essentially says: "humans live in relationship with one another and should deal with desires to keep relationship healthy." You must admit that constraining oneself to be in healthy relationship is in fact an admittance that you can not in fact do what you want, which leaves us with a double standard for men and women. But moving on... in all honesty this point is valid. It's contrary to the former premise, and the author would put all of the burden of desire on men alone. But her heart is in the right place. Dare I say: my heart is in the right place too? You see, relationship is a two way street. It's a popular argument in our culture today to suggest that individuals can remain independent and in relationship. But to purport this foolishness is to value the individual over the relationship, and ultimately to live with our friends, our lover, our parents and our offspring in a shallowness that will never be as full as God intended. So I beg of you reader, if you've made it this far, let me propose an agreement rather than a settlement, a treaty of promise, rather than an answer to the question of navels and modesty:
1) I as a man will exercise my will in treating all women with the respect they deserve, I know and am aware that I am made differently, both in strengths and struggles, and I will not condemn them in our differences, rather I will lift them up and give them honor in whatever capacity of relationship God places us in.
2) Women, I entreat you, to never burden yourselves with guilt and condemnation for your dress, but rather to seek understanding and empathy with regards to men. I have no right to require change, you're not in my family. But I can beg of you consideration for your community not just your selves when you choose what you wear.
As with all things conviction and godliness are through grace from God above. Arguing down any woman for her dress is a hard way to start relationship. But condemning Ms. Rey simply because she suggests the obvious, that men react to more skin rather than less, in ways unsuitable for human society and general relationship, is a tasteless endeavor. Especially when your arguments have as many holes in them as you'd clam to find in her own.
