So we, as a society, have “peeping tom” laws to protect people who might unknowingly expose themselves to the creepy peepers of, well, creepy peepers who get their thrills from seeing and sometimes photographing strangers revealing more than they meant to.
It would seem reasonable enough to consider surreptitiously taken “upskirt” photographs as violations of peeping tom laws. But not in Massachusetts: On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court in that state ruled that upskirt photographs are legally ok, as the laws there are written to apply only to protect victims who are “partially nude,” not those who are merely wearing short skirts.
In the wake of the ruling, legislators and women’s rights advocates are saying that the laws — written before cell phone camera were ubiquitous — need an update.
Naturally, this has some of the dedicated Human Rights activists in the Men’s Rights subreddit in an uproar. How dare anyone challenge their sacred right to take pictures of women’s panties on public transportation without their consent!
![Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20) Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public. How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him? This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom. permalink save source save give gold hide child comments [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8) You're absolutely correct. If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body. You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body. permalink save source save parent give gold [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7) Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/demonskirt.png?resize=575%2C448&ssl=1)
“Wearing a skirt has consequences!” What a perfect slogan for a “movement” that is about little more than tearing down half of humanity in the name of, what, a man’s right to be a peeping tom? Put it on a t-shirt, Demonspawn, and show the world the kind of creep you are.
NOTE: Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this.
UPDATE: The Massachusetts State Legislature, moving surprisingly quickly, has passed a new law explicitly banning upskirt photos; it could be signed into law by tomorrow.
@emilygoddess
Ah, I guess I misread your comment. Sorry about that. I’m glad you don’t lump us anarchists in the same group as libertarians – I’ve seen it happen a lot in many online spaces and it sucks.
I’m with leatapp – this is too gross to me for humor, especially after the quote cloudiah found. 🙁
Looks like the legislature came through and upskirt photos are now (well, very soon to be anyway, because somehow I doubt the governor is going to refuse or even delay signing it) illegal in Massachusetts again: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html
@Ally, I probably should have been clearer/more careful, ’cause it did look like I was dismissing the very idea of state violence – which I know is actually a thing, just not in the way he meant it.
It sounds like he has a point but he doesn’t really.
a) people react badly to being spurned or feeling alone, not just men.
b) he’s not talking about being spurned by someone you had a relationship with, he’s talking about men who react badly to women going about their lives and ignoring them, which is exactly what billions of men do to them too, but the men aren’t to blame. coincidence?
c) it equates it to people who react badly to being bullied mercilessly. They are not at all the same, but it implies the women (ALL women) are actively and maliciously bullying a man by not dating him.
“How dare they complain about their privacy being infringed! It isn’t like we act aggrieved when someone reveals our personal information…right?”
That’s what their argument basically sounds like, to me.
Re: on Libertarianism.
The problem with the label – no, I’m not going down that route – is that the original meaning has been rendered obsolete due to being co-opted by corporatist interests. Noam Chomsky considered himself such until recently because of such. It’s understandable given how many interests of present-day Libertarian politics coincide with the interests of wealthy individuals like the Kochs, who use the term more for P.R. than anything else. I’ve talked to self-proclaimed Libertarians who claimed to dislike the presence of corporate interest in their country…only to argue in favor of deregulation and government interference. It’s been able to advertise itself well enough to where it and wring people in on any issue and applying individualistic, pro-business logic to try converting them. It’s like evangelical Christianity – but “Jesus” is replaced by “The Market.” It’s a religion even atheists can get behind, apparently…
Charles Murray attempted doing such with “The Bell Curve”…except the funding for his research came from a Libertarian group with white supremacist attitudes. It framed government welfare as the reason why black Americans lived in such terrible conditions – ’cause nevermind the institutional racism and the hundreds of years of slavery – which Dinesh D’Souza follows up as to claiming why black youths have a harder time with education is due to their “culture” (i.e. genetic make-up) and thus not the fault of public or private education being unable to properly provide for them. They obviously white-wash how much influence big businesses had in oppressing minorities as well as to blocking policies that would rely on socialized service, since the the earlier can be exploited in heavily deregulated and privatized to profit from such – the latter means less profit for them and the lack of a cheap labor force lacking worker’s rights. That’s why you always hear about unions being bullies, yet never hear a peep about the abuse of power from employers. Why? Because, like priests, they are seen as “deserving” their position and the money it makes – which supposedly makes his will superior to those of his subordinates. Why? ‘Cause, like, “The Market”!
I can understand Ally being upset at the confusion between it and anarchy. The latter, despite being very maligned, is more complex and lacks the glorification of hierarchy the way Libertarianism does (though it tries hiding it like Scientology does its sci-fi novels passed off as religious scripture). I know some people use the term “anarcho-capitalism” but…that’s the biggest oxymoron I’ve ever heard. It’d be like saying “Lawless Government” – the latter cannot really exist if it is the earlier, since rule of law is what defines a government.
Gah!
*Where it CAN wring people in, is what I meant…
Reblogged this on Black Metal Valkyrie-question male-identified bullshit and commented:
Well its official, I’m never wearing a dress again.
Who appointed these guys to be judge and jury of what women can and can’t wear? What a bunch of pompous creeps.
Massachusetts legislature: please ban up-rectum heads too.
Yep. What this guy is trying to sell is the idea that if a woman is, for example, sitting on the train reading a book and doesn’t notice or acknowledge the man checking her out from across the aisle, she’s cruelly torturing him and is responsible for any and the mental anguish he’s feeling (because his sense of entitlement tells him that she should be paying attention to him, and/or he’s just lonely). It’s basically a less screeching-in-all-caps version of the shit that GGG waffles on about.
The underlying principle of all MRA ideas is the same – women owe it to men to give them whatever the men want, and if that’s not happening it’s an outrage that the men shouldn’t be expected to tolerate.
But they don’t hate women! Women are just misandrists who say all men are rapists!!
My 2 year old has the same mentality. But, y’know, she’s 2. And she’s already starting to grow out of it.
Yes, the “I want it!” and “It’s not faiiiiirrrrrrrrrr” response to being told they can’t have it is very toddlerish. It’s even worse, not just because they’re (allegedly) adults, and are threatening violence – even if it’s all bluster – but because they expect women to be mind readers. We’re supposed to anticipate their lusts and comply with them immediately so as not to hurt their fee-fees.
Except of course if we did, we’d then be sluts and whores and so on to every other rapey incel/MRA etc. asshole out there.
At this point, I almost wish they would. I’m sick of being unable to wear anything not-covered-all-the-way-up in public because of assholes with cellphones ruining it for everyone. Catcallers and curb-crawlers are gross enough, but these faceless cowards sneaking peeks that only technology could enable? Don’t deserve any rights. Unless, of course, I get the right to out all these creepshooters on the Internet, exposing them to ridicule, job loss, divorce, etc. I mean, it’s only fair, if upskirting is allowed…right?
Oops, sorry about that can of worms I got all over your nice clean stoopid, fellas!
OMG!!! All these women are running around and under their clothes they’re totally naked! They’re the ones running around totally naked under their clothes so if we take up skirt snaps it’s their fault and if you disagree that’s evil Misandry!
If a woman dare exist openly in public she should expect men to behave badly and take perv shots of her? Unless she’s covered from head to toe and wearing a veil to cover her face? Oh wait, covering myself like a hazmat worker could indicate that I feel compelled to hide in public?
That’s not fair, that’s fucked.
Take responsibility for your actions, fellas. If you’re posting perv shots, don’t be surprised if someone notices and calls you out for it.
I posted this over on Butterflies & Wheels at FtB first because that is where I first heard about the court ruling. Others here have alluded to the MA Supreme Court getting the ruling legally correct based on what they had to go on, but I thought maybe this could help:
“My wife, who happens to be an attorney but wishes to caution that she hasn’t read the opinion of the court beyond my quoting of the article about the nude or partially nude so you should understand that she is speaking from general principles, remarks that though it should be clear in this case, you don’t want the courts extrapolating what a law actually means. There is a reason lawyer-speak is very dense and boring, yet exactingly detailed, and it’s because the law covers what it says it covers and no more than that.
So if the old law doesn’t explicitly say it covers what happens with a recording device placed under a person’s outer clothing, then the courts can’t apply it in that way. Especially since once a court rules a certain way, the precedent is set and becomes difficult to change. Yes, *in this case* it would make sense to add the upskirt extrapolation, but what happens when, say, the SCOTUS interprets a law to say that corporations are people?
This was the very definition of… wait, I can’t phrase it that way in this case. This is a technicality, no doubt, but if we want to keep from punishing innocent people, then we need to be very clear about what is illegal under the statute.
And to be clear, I find the ruling astonishing and the results of this ruling abhorrent. But I now understand that when it comes to being punished for breaking the law, it should be very clear what you have done to break the law. It’s not really a place where we should say, “Eh, close enough.” ”
Sometimes people forget that judges are people, and as people, they are most likely just as horrified as the rest of us by what this guy did. But they have a specific job with very specific criteria, and they seem to have done their jobs to the best of their ability.
Jerkweeds on Reddit trying to find a way to use this ruling to excuse rape is far outside the ruling, though. I said I find the possible results of this ruling abhorrent, and these guys have proved my fears correct.
Sometimes the proper perspective is “Would you be okay if that was your daughter and guys were taking pictures of her under skirt?”
I’d like to think MRAs would say no. But I think some might shrug it off just to stay true to their views, thinking ‘If she’s going to dress like a whore she’s going to get treated like one. Maybe this will teach her a lesson.’
All it’s going to teach her, after she gets over the shame, is that there’s still a need for feminism in the world.
Good one, MRA dad.
Hey, in case anyone was wondering whether or not they were complete hypocrites:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e4m1j/hollaback_the_iphone_creep_reporting_app/
Taking photos of actual harassers: not okay
Taking photos of women being harassed by those photos: totally fine
The Sam the Eagle philosophy.
I’m glas the legislature moved quickly to make upskirt photos illegal, and added an update/link to the post.
Kind of scary that the legality of surreptitiously taking photos of people’s genitalia without their permission was even up for debate, though. Bet it wouldn’t be if men were the usual victims.
@emilygoddess I have a Japanese i-phone and I tried turning the sound all the way down and putting the headphones in. No matter what I do, the camera sound is at the same volume. I didn’t know about this, but I definitely approve. 😀 Everyone is seems very busy at the moment, but if I get a chance to check this out on some of my colleagues’ non-iphone phones later tonight I will let you know the results. 🙂
BTW, wanted to pass this link on for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. It’s a WHO study about violence against women. Among other things they found that worldwide, 38% of women who are murdered are murdered by a current or former (male) partner.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/violence_against_women_20130620/en/
And here’s the key data. Notice the rate of sexual violence for the Americas combined – it’s not at 1 in 6 or 1 in 4 women, it’s 1 in 3 (and almost 1 in 2 in some other regions).