By David Futrelle
Yesterday, an older British gentleman who describes himself as a “Journalist Extraordinaire” received a light roasting on Twitter after he declared that women who “wear clothes showing a lot of flesh in the shoulder, leg and … bosom department” are somehow undermining the long struggle for gender equality through their choice of attire.
I was one of the roasters:
These sorts of complaints used to be confined to Puritanical religious fundamentalists who consider women in summer clothes to be “stumbling blocks” for lusty men. Indeed, the last person I remember yelling about the sin-inducing powers of women’s shoulders was a rather excitable priest named Kevin M. Cusick, who also enjoys ranting about the alleged evils of “sodomite homosexualists,” “so-called trans” folks, and of course Muslims.
But in the last few years this, er, argument has been taken up by assorted manospherians, from MGTOWs to incels, who rail against everything from yoga pants to the sneakily alluring powers of female arms. The manosphere-tailing intellectual charlatan Jordan Peterson has jumped in with his own complaints about the sexually hypnotizing powers of makeup and high heels.
Aas it turns out, as I’ve mentioned here before, this dumb idea has a long history among Men’s Rights Activists. In his 1993 manifesto The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell, the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, famously warned men to beware of the “cleavage power” and the “miniskirt power” that young women have over older men, even their bosses at work.
Like Mr. Duncan today, Farrell argued that women who dressed in ways he deems too sexy are effectively coming on to all men who see them — and if these clothes are worn in the workplace, they indicate that the wearer is less interested in work than in getting herself hitched to some nearby eligible man. In his mind, “indirect initiatives” like wearing short skirts are
designed to lead to marriage … So the miniskirt, perfume, and flirting unconsciously tell the man that this woman wants an end to her involvement in the workplace—or, at least, an end to her involvement by obligation. If you were a boss who had to choose between promoting someone who had the option to work versus someone with the obligation to work (e.g., to support a spouse and three children), whom would you take more seriously?
Yes, that’s right: In Farrell’s mind, if a woman wears a short skirt and/or lipstick to work, she’s signaling that she doesn’t want a promotion — she wants a proposal.
In almost all cultures throughout human history, women’s indirect initiatives were their way of signaling their desire for men to take direct initiatives. A flirtation was an invitation. In some cultures, lipstick was a woman’s way of signaling her willingness to perform fellatio.
Er, what? Farrell provides no citation for this claim, which I suspect may have emerged fully formed from his pants.
In the South Sea islands, a fresh flower in a woman’s hair signaled availability. The purpose of the flower, lipstick, or the miniskirt is to put the signal out strongly enough to stimulate every man’s interest. It is only when she has every man’s interest that she has real choice—the choice of the “best” men.
Ok, you may say to yourself, but he wrote this way back in 1993, which is practically the 1970s; didn’t everyone think like this back then? As someone who was an adult in 1993, my answer is NO, and also I’m taking these quotes from the 2014 reissue of the book.
Which, by the way, features a naked woman’s butt on the cover.
As Farrell explains in a new introduction to the book (written in 2014), this rather unexpected choice of cover art for a book about “male power” is his way of “tastefully” reminding people of “heterosexual boys’ and men’s feelings of powerlessness when our eyes behold a genetic celebrity.”
“Genetic celebrity” is Farrell’s term of art for attractive young women with, I guess, junk in the trunk
In conclusion, most heterosexual men enjoy looking at women’s asses, and cleavage, and, I guess, shoulders. Some of these men also think that these female body parts oppress them by being looked at. These men are very weird, and their arguments make no damn sense at all.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Old lady here. Lots of random stuff turns me on. That’s on me – not others. Self control matters, lol!
If I actually took these guys at their word, then I wouldn’t understand what they’re whining about. If seeing a particular thing is pleasant, then why would you get angry at someone for having that thing be visible? For example, I love dogs, and seeing a joyful pup out on a walk always brightens my day. Most of the time I’ll want to pet the dog, but sometimes I can’t do it for a variety of reasons. (The dog is a service dog, or I don’t have the time to stop, or the dog does not want to be petted, etc.) That’s no one’s fault, and it’s certainly not any reason for me to be angry with the dog’s owner for bringing out a dog that doesn’t exist for me to pet. Just seeing dogs is a good thing! It’s nice! It would be stupid and mean and also none of my business to tell people they need to keep their dogs inside.
Do these men also whine about how the sun is oppressing them by making beautiful sunrises and sunsets?
Of course, the ‘women are harassing me by possessing sexy body parts’ argument is completely disingenuous and is only an excuse to exert control over women, exclude women, and have a way to blame women for the actions that men choose to make.
Depends on how “temporary” you want it. Wanking would probably work on very short timescales.
I know it’s fun to joke around like “shoulders? really?” but of course it isn’t about who finds what sexy, but how to not objectify people. I do actually find some people’s shoulders sexy, and I get distracted, and that’s on me because everyone has a right to exist in peace in their own bodies
Re: Farrell
Uh, whichever one does the job better?
@Surplus
I haven’t gotten this exact thing and I don’t have Facebook, but the last time I was at Starbucks (a couple months ago-a tornado at the time had knocked out my electricity for a few days) they wanted my email address when I went to connect to the WiFi. I put it in and now they send me promotions, so I’m guessing this Facebook-details-in-exchange-for-WiFi that you’re encountering is also an advertising gambit? If it’s not an advertising thing and they’re using Facebook WiFi like Kupo said, there may be a guest option for non-Facebook users (you’d have to ask an employee if there is, though). Worst-case scenario, you could make an account on Facebook or Instagram and then only use it to connect to Facebook WiFi. None of these possibilities are great, but this is all I can think of.
@Ariblester: What, you mean like masturbation breakrooms set up in major businesses for their employees, and maybe some in semi-public areas just in case you’re away from home and badly need to rub one out? I mean because if it’s bad enough, some of these guys might only make it a few hours before getting all hot and *literally* bothered again. And unless you effectively made a combination high sex drive / toxic misogyny to be legally equivalent to disability, it’s not like those are the only people who would ever use them. That would be an iiiiinteresting direction for a society to take, not that it would happen.
The joke may be going over my head, but you sound like you’re describing public toilets, which kinda already exist. So, use those, I guess.
Mostly, I just wanted to call them wankers.
(Personally, I don’t have any more reservations about people using public toilets to masturbate as I do with them using public toilets to defecate, i.e. as long as they clean up after themselves and keep the doors closed. YMMV.)
My boobs are massive. I could wear a turtle neck sweater and still show too much cleavage.
I always wear t-shirts with a high neck line. Because I’m glow in the dark pale and sun burnt cleavage sucks.
I was in Cologne recently and visited the Dom. There were dudes at the entrance handing out scarves to all the women with bare shoulders.
If any of you are familiar with juggling cloths, the scarves were from that material. Completely see through. Might as well have been cling film.
That had me very confused.
I know I’m subconsciously undermining my gender equality by wearing tank tops and shorts in 98 degree heat. And flip flops, always with the flip flops.
@Knitting Cat Lady
Mine also (surprise?) and yet despite being typically female-presenting with them, I have have been purposefully misgendered by icky fundamentalist Mormon types in Arizona, just because I had a crew cut hairstyle at the time (it was growing out from being shaved and donated). Anything out of norm and uncontrolled bothers those types. I reckon the scarves are the same: it’s the fact that women are controlled that matters, not how much shoulder can be seen.
@Catalpa
Nicely put!
Though this:
isn’t really relevant. The only time these fools look at the sun is to make sure it’s still shining out of their arse.
Women have shoulders, and so do men. That sounds pretty equal to me. Inequality originates 100% in the minds of men who can’t stop seeing women as objects, and then want to blame women for that failure.
Misogynists should be discouraged from revealing their opinions in public. It’s too distracting and we can’t get our jobs done. Maybe a nice scarf to cover up the mouth area?
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
I’d really like it if all bigots were encouraged to keep their mouths shut. Duct tape?
@Naglfar: Surgical glue.
FYI: as I learned it in Hawaii, the flower behind the RIGHT ear means you are single, the flower behind the LEFT ear means you are taken.
And yet of you’re a woman who dresses like I do, in men’s cargo shorts, nerd tee, addidas trainers and a check shirt you’re accused of not being feminine enough. Which I don’t care about because that’s my whole deal but shows you just cannot win whatever you wear as a woman.
If these fellows are so concerned about equality they should make more of an effort to get men to stop going about in public in nothing but a pair of shorts. Some of those NAKED torsos look damned fine too. They really only have themselves to blame when they get raped.
Sooooooo… the argument is that these guys can’t control their OWN bodies or thoughts, so women’s and their presentations should be controlled instead? By the very men who can’t control their OWN bodies?
You know, there might be a bit of a drawback to planning to appear totally helpless in order to muscle that jackboot back onto the necks of people who really DO have to fight for rights. A very contradictory and illogical drawback.
Off topic but if you can get onto iPlayer BBC have a documentary about incels. Soft pedals a bit but still worth a look.
@Writch Codex:
This is such an excellent point!
@Simon:
Unfortunately, it looks like your link doesn’t work outside the UK.
One of the commonalities in this kind of sour wankery is the subtext of ‘there she is being sexually attractive *at me*, and all I’m allowed to do is look!’
As my husband would say, dry my tears.
Here’s a mirror on YouTube that I found off Reddit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5Jlx8MTp8
Currently Likes to Dislikes is 2:1, so obviously some people got riled up by it.
Thanks Ariblester!
I went to Italy when I was 16 (it was an optional school trip organized by the principal and a history teacher) and I remember two places having rules about women having to cover their shoulders.
Vatican City was one. I think they also had a rule banning shorts (on anybody). But it was an interesting visit because we got to see the museum where the Sistine Chapel was, with the painted ceiling by Michelangelo. I’d thought that was the sort of thing I’d only see in books.
The other time was in a historical church whose name I forget. I was wearing a sleeveless top, so someone had to lend me a cardigan before going in. I was kind of embarrassed at forgetting, plus a bit annoyed. I thought, “Okay, Pope City can do weird stuff, but this is just a random church. Stop telling me what to wear!” (an attempt to approximate my teenage interior monologue).