It's never a good idea to form an opinion of judicial actions based on reports in newspapers. I think Angela Chong also has a common misunderstanding about the role of the courts, and the powers exercised by the judiciary.

The full written judgement is here.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2005/111.html

As is usually the case, one finds that the decision is made in accordance with the law, as it must be. Even if the magistrate had considered it unacceptable in our society for the woman to be required to wear a mini skirt, he still couldn't have ruled differently in the case.

Such issues, if they are going to be addressed at all, need to be addressed by parliament.

Sylvia Else.

I think Sylvia has misunderstood the point of my article.

My concern is not that the decision was not ‘made in accordance with the law’. I realise that other factors led to the court’s decision. I am aware of the voluntary agreement made between Ms Zhang and her employee which partly contributed to the magistrate’s decision. However, this does not take away from the fact that in paragraph 61 of his judgment, the magistrate outlines Ms Zhang’s consent to wear short skirts socially as part of his reasons.

The powers of the judiciary are not confined to applying the law, but also extend to interpreting it. More importantly, the role of the judge is to decide a case on its relevant facts. I do not see how a woman’s choice to wear mini skirts outside the workplace is at all relevant to her claim of sex discrimination against her employer.

As is the case with most judgments, the final outcome itself is not the only thing of importance; the legal reasoning should also be examined. In this case, the magistrate took into account the irrelevant fact of Ms Zhang’s normal attire. This sends out the wrong message that a woman’s right to be free from discrimination can partly be compromised by the clothes she chooses to wear.

Paragraph 61 seems nothing more than a finding of fact, and the issue of the woman wearing short skirts in her social life is only raised as part of the rationale for believing some evidence. It is important that these findings of fact be recorded, even if the magistrate holds the view that it's not relevant. A higher court might decide otherwise.

I cannot see that it formed any part of the final decision.

Even if the woman had not been accustomed to wearing short skirts in her social life, her claim would still have failed.

Angela is attaching much to much importance to something that was really quite peripheral to question being decided.

Sylvia Else.

The underlying problem here is that this is a Religious question.
Our Federal Government is not allowed to make any law on Religion - section 116. And if it does it will be violating the Constitution.

However our State Governments are not so restricted since an attempt to extend 116 to the States failed.

So legally a Federal Court can make no ruling, but a State Court could.

Since Religion is such a controversial volatile and violent matter it is absurd to expect any State to function in this hamstrung way. So Section 116 should be abolished or ammended so that the State, the Federal State that is, can legally make rulings on such matters.

Of course that is not going to satisfy any of the losing parties
but at least it will give a Federal Law which all must abide with. Keith

kthrex, why is this a religious question? I am not familiar with the case other than what I have read here but nothing so far has sounded specifically like a religious issue.

Does anyone know how this stuff works in the contect of...
1. Working at a Grand Prix as a promotional 'grid girl' (or 'grid guy') which may require an imposed uniform.
2. Working in a clothing (fashion) or, say, a mobile phone store where the dress may be part of the image the company wants to project to customers.

Are there any defined boundaries in these areas? At what point does it become acceptable for an employer to define dress that may be considered unacceptable to the wearer?

Angela, you hit the nail on the head with your article. I was outraged by reading the judgment of the magistrate re the woman who failed in her discrimination case. It was a point of law which seemed to rest on that the particular award had had the clause removed about the right for employees to refuse to wear certain clothing on request of the employer. Thanks to the Howard govt. So no refuge in the law for her, but I still thought the magistrate's equations sucked big time. To the point where a muslim cleric says something and gets a bigger reaction. Where on earth are we headed? For the stupid poster above re grand prix girls, well... they wouldn't know if they had a clause in their award about their attire would they? and they wouldn't even know what an award was, unless it was a satin sash around their bikini.

Apologies for the above post SteveD, it was a bit harsh when I re-read it after posting. Yes, some employers may rightly require a uniform and i know with grid girls and retail we ain't talking about bikinis. Uniform requirements are usually written in awards, or enterprise agreements and are usually quite sane. ie: if working in a confectionary factory one must wear overalls etc., and for instance McDonalds' would have a clause where you must wear your uniform on shift. Which makes a lot of sense when you're handling food or working in messy places. However, the grey area is when there is no clause, rather an unwritten dress code. In offices, this isn't a problem, unless you say, come to work braless in bike shorts and a king gee singlet and you are the receptionist. What can management do lawfully under an award, unless they have a written dress code and you have been told what it is? say in induction? Apologies again for the reactive i threw at you. But Angela, in total agreement with your article and subsequent postings.

I couldn't agree more with Angela, thank you for your comments. That is exactly what I thought, especially when the shock jocks made such a big deal about the cleric's comments and calling them "cultural murder", as if that kind of thinking didn't exist in "our" society at all. It seems that there will always be people who will read race into everything. Thanks Angela

Hmm perhaps a female employee should be expected to have sex with her boss. Afterall she probably has sex out of work hours. ;)

And pity those women compelled to marry the boss …

"Australia is white, civilised and morally upstanding. How dare a Muslim or 'other' declare that we are otherwise" ( this is a regular subtext found within media coverage and public voice about the 'other' since colonisation) ...its usually about who they think they are as well who they think they are not without ever declaring either clearly.....the beat goes on.

Angela asserts "To take away a woman’s right not to wear a short skirt at work on the basis that she wears them socially is to suggest, as the cleric does, that a woman’s autonomy can be compromised by what she chooses to wear"

The idea of autonomy is quaint but dangerous.

What we do and say has bearing not just for ourselves but others as well.

Woman can dress in ways that are sexually provocative to men. We always remain our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper.

Women can and do send wrong signals to men.

The Muslim cleric was right to draw attention to, in effect, the need for women to dress modestly. He was badly wrong to allow this observation to justify the rape of women by men who saw such provocative dressing as a "come on".

I saw an impromptu media interview with the muslim cleric in question. He was trying to clarify the intent of his previous comments, to indicate that he had not meant that women are inviting rape, or to blame for it.

Yet he still managed to convey that sense. I had the impression that he was being let down by his command of English.

Does provocative clothing cause rape? No. Is it a factor? Yes. Should it be? No. Would women be less likely to be raped if they didn't wear provocative clothing? Probably. Are they to blame therefore if it happens? No.

On such a subject, it's very easy to get into all sorts of strife if you make unconsidered comments. It's all the worse if you're not fully conversent with the language you're using.

Sylvia Else

I have never seen a workplace where women are required to wear mini-skirts as a part of their workplace uniform, and the workplace in question in this article must be extremely rare. But I have seen many women wearing revealing and suggestive clothing outside of work, and obviously they are not trying to attract male attention.

Timkins haven't you ever seen job vacancy adverts for "skimpy", see-thru" or "topless" barpersons?

Good point Sylvie, even when conversant with the English language we can still be stumbling and haplessly misunderstood. And it is true that some jobs (mainly in the loosely described hospitality industry) put the subliminal message across about how one dresses and treats the customers. Anything to get them to buy another beer. It's only when one gets older that one sees the outrageous exploitation in a moral setting. (ie young women should NOT be judged about what they wear) In my forties, I will not wear mini skirts again, but at the time that i was wearing them it wasn't to be sexually provocative (come here) but more celebrating the fact that I had (and still do!) a great set of pegs. I never expected to meet Mr Right that way. (and surprisingly never did) It's just notice. I deplore the day that women are told to dress a certain way because men find it provocative. Otherwise we'll be in sheaths and the exposure of an ankle would be called provocative.

Silent Minority,
Actually I have never been to a topless bar. Should I go?

I have never been to a bar where the waiters wear skimpy shorts either. Should I go?

But I have seen many women wearing low cut blouses, mid riff tops, short skirts etc in many places, (and often in the middle of winter), and I think that most men are eventually attracted to women who dress more modestly, as Di found out.

The question is why women like Di are not out there telling young girls about this, because women’s magazines are filled with advertisements of skimpy clothes, and it is women, not men who buy them.

Silent Minority

Di said "I never expected to meet Mr Right that way."

There was no "finding out", as your posting implied.

Ok, I'll reveal the female world's best kept secret.

You ready for this?

It's......

"Women dress the way they do because they like to."

Oh - so that's it! Boring.

Sylvia

Yeah, exactly Sylvia! it's hilarious that men are so full of themselves that they think women take an interest in clothes and makeup and self grooming and like to look nice just to attract men. NEWSFLASH, when we say that we do it "to feel good about ourselves" we really mean it. Our clothing and makeup is not always and only intended as some subliminal come-come for your benefit, Timkins.

Ok.... just when u girls thought you were out of someone to hate, here I am:).

The comments made by the Islamic fellow were partly true, and partly more a reflection of the core of Islamic 'male'ness. At the centre of Islam is a very male centered and very sex oriented culture, see Mohammed is said to have the sexual energy of 30 men, hence he had like 12 or more wives. So, having said that, he may well be accurate if he means "Islamic men will be more likely to rape women who display themselves in a provocative manner"

That aside, lets talk about 'female autonomy'. There is in fact so such thing in the natural order. Female autonomy is ALWAYS under the umbrella of relationships with powerful males. Indeed this is not readily observable in TODAY's western culture, but when one analyses the progression of culture and compares the position of females in traditional cultures, where government starts and finishes at the boundaries of a tribal territory, it is abundantly clear that men run the show.

What we have today is an artificial construct based on a considerable degree of political pressure by militant females (suffrogettes etc) but aided by sympathetic men. The fundamental reality of life, is that if a man WANTS a female, he can and often does TAKE her. Usually such a thing would be "illegal" today, but it is still 'POSSIBLE'.

The way some girls AND men dress, it is pretty hard to avoid the 'Well here I am, I've got it, and I'm flaunting it' message that comes across. Given that the community contains a significant number of men who are closer to the threshold of sexual assault behavior than others, blind nellie can see that to dress in a way which stimulates this, and then to have the nerve to think u can walk around at any time of day or nite at any place and avoid such people, is just plain STUPID.

If we are to believe recent mental health statistics, then one in five will suffer mental illness at some point in their lives. This I presume includes a cross section of society and does not discriminate on the basis of what one wears. It is just as likely to include potential rapists as it does the mini-skirt wearers.

It is fine for all of us to demand safety in the streets at any time of day and night, and it is understandable that we want to improve the health system. However, those unaware of the risks and dangers should be willing to take some advice on safety. Those who drive cars are usually aware of road rules and take safety precautions. They know it is possible to lose control of a vehicle – if not themselves, then other drivers can put their lives at risk.

Just as no one ever deserves to be raped, others do not deserve to die as a result of crime or accident. People sent to war have a fair idea of risks they will endure (or not) - less so, the people taking up smoking or other addictive substances.

The point is that some risks we take in everyday life are legislated against; others are not. Legally or illegally, these things still occur. It makes no sense for people to take known risks and feel immune of any consequence.

Seeker... WELLL SAID !
slightly more benign than the way I put it, :) and probably more bearable to the feminists here, but sometimes we need to be colorful in making a point, to break through the accumulated layers of rediculous accumulated propoganda about 'being female' that so many females have just swallowed hook line and sinker.

I reiterate, without the protective relationship of some male somewhere, and this will include police, females are VULNERABLE, to exacerbate this vulnerability with overly provocative attire is naive at best, and culpably foolhardy at worst.

If we have to display our male or female 'bits' in provative ways to 'feel good' about ourselves, then I question the whole basis of 'feeling good' in such a life. If feeling good means to tempt, and flaunt one's self in a way which we KNOW is likely (or is specifically designed to ) to frustrate or stimulate the opposite sex, and suggest that we are 'come and get it baby, I'm all tits and ass' (and vice versa for males) then, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in some cases its as much the fault of the victim as the perpetrator of sexual molestation. Holding up a sign 'GO' but then expecting provoked members of the opposite sex to understand "Oh.. hunni, this is not for you, so get lost you loser" is a tad optimistic I feel and has a strong likelihood of bringing out the absolute worst in 'close to the threshold' people.

So, wear what you like, do what you like, show off whateva -but don't whine when some idiot takes the message seriously and doesn't have the will power to restrain himself and finds himself in the position to actually DO something about it.

Without dignifying Boaz's execrable comments by responding to him directly, I suppose that women (and young men and kids too) wearing bathing costumes are asking for it if they excite the irrepressible base urges of heterosexual and/or homosexual men and paedophiles?

I'm Too Sexy
(Right Said Fred)

I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
Love's going to leave me

I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan

And I'm too sexy for your party
Too sexy for your party
No way I'm disco dancing

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my car too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my

'Cos I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my cat too sexy for my cat
Poor pussy poor pussy cat
I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
Love's going to leave me

And I'm too sexy for this song

Sylvia Else

That was Timkins who posted about "finding out".

Formerly dress code was not a religious issue, however the rise of Islamic power in Australia has made it so. Keith

To BOAZ-David, one of the truly great minds of the 12th Century (what a shame we don’t have a time machine to send him back there) –

I don’t need the protective relationship of any male anywhere thanks, and I’m sure the same goes for many women. And try to understand this if you can – wearing any sort of clothing, or no clothing, or a sack, or a bikini, or a short skirt, or ANYTHING does NOT equal “Please Rape/ Sexually Assault Me Now”. And please don’t give me that tripe about men not being able to control their urges – they have minds don’t they? Oh and I don’t wear “provocative” clothing, but I reserve the right to do so if I ever want to, without you or anyone else interpreting that as an invitation to rape me. I was violently, forcibly, sexually assaulted at 11 years of age, whilst in the water at the beach, swimming, wearing my bathing suit. According to your logic, I suppose I should have gone swimming in my track suit.

Well said Jane.

Aren't some of us forgetting something here, or have I missed something? I was under the impression that RAPE was an act of violence, than a sexual act. At the end of the day, a man who rapes women, will rape a woman,whether she is wearing are wearing a "Brazilian Bikini" or a full suit of armour. Its about having an abusive and degrading power over another person, is it not? Not all men in the presence of a woman dressed "provocatively" (whatever that means), will rape her, harass her or whatever.

The argument that has been put forth is analogous to saying that anyone who leaves a window open or unlocked is inviting people to come into their house and take what they want.

We would not say to these houseowners, 'don't whine when some idiot takes the message seriously and doesn't have the will power to restrain himself'.

Perhaps the incident could have been avoided if they had shut the window, but we would never use that to shift the blame away from the thief.

The real question, then, is why do we feel the need to justify the actions of a rapist?

Angela, I am hesitant to respond to this because there is a risk of looking like I am "defending the rapist" - I am not doing that.

I grew up on a farm, we never used to lock the house. Crime was very rare in the area and it was though that if someone wanted to get into the house they would be able to do so anyway so probably better to avoid the busted door or window. The suburb I live in now does have a pretty low crime rate but enough risk that I choose to lock doors and windows most of the time. I don't leave car keys in my car in the driveway, leave car windows down at the shopping center or leave valuables lying around outside when I am not near them.

I could probably get away with leaving stuff unlocked more regularly. Occasionally I have come home and discovered the front door unlocked.

I would prefer to be able to live without locked doors, with windows down in the car on a hot day but I choose not to do so because I don't want the pain of being robbed. I resent that the actions of others make living with locks a better option than living without.

I would like harsher penalties for those who force the need for locks on the rest of us. In the mean time I adjust my behaviour to suit my estimate of the risk vs the consequences. If the risks appear lower then I take less care with security, if the risks appear higher then I take more care. The crime is someone elses, the responsibility to try and manage my risk taking is mine.

Angela
how about READing what I said. Defend/Justify the actions of a rapist ?.. hell NO ! But explaining certain social phenomena YES !
The window incident reminds me of when I left the roller door of my factory unlocked and one day went to use my compressor only to find that it, along with a considerable number of other tools were NOT there !... who's fault ? MINE, because I KNOW there are opportunistic thieves out there, and I didn't take appropriate action,but who is guilty of the crime ? The thief! I felt very violated by that because I was not insured as well.

Your comment about 'why do we have to justify the actions of a rapist' only show how incredibly unculcated is this idea that when people tell it like it is, they are immediately defending rapists or sexual assaulters. That outcome was a result of biased and unclear thinking. Have another go.

David,

Despite an increasing awareness of the problem of sexual violence, there is still reluctance for date rape to be considered criminal or even unacceptable behavior. I think this is what Angela has argued very clearly.

It’s the acceptance of what are inherently deviant social norms and actions as 'normal' [explained as inevitable] transactions in human relationships that’s the problem. Rape is not inevitable [read naturalistic], its a calculated and planned crime against victims.

I have black skin, does this make it ok for others to racially vilify me because I have not shown enough responsibility ie,'by ensuring that I don’t appear to be black'? Not from my experience.

Similarly, let’s not forget that many women who have not dressed 'provocatively' have also been violently raped.

And I think crimes of violence on the basis of someones appearance are completely different to crimes of theft.

I'll have a go-go at this one. Considering that people apparently go along to nudist camps and let it all hang out (the lack of dressing provocatively?, one doesn't hear stories about wild sex and assaults left right and centre. Which means that some people are quite okay with nudity and don't find it a CFM thingy. Dress codes for women are subliminal for men and us women, as a previous poster pointed out quite rightly, don't necessarily dress up/down for men. We may quite rightly feel we have nice legs or boobs and display them because a) gee they make me look/feel good and b) some guy might be attracted enough to get his face out of his beer and come talk to me, but if he ends up a tosser that just wants to keep looking at them all night, he's not for me. As the female of the species, we probably and subconsciously want to attract, but at the same time we are pretty concerned about being in control. Re fashion playing its role, makeup and dress up for women have been there and i don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's FUN! Plastic surgery to make yourself feel good about yourself is a bit of a worry. And if New Idea started promoting nose bags as a fashion accessory then I would know it was time to climb into a burka. Some women (especially young girls) get the fashion thing so wrong, (I did, but blame it on the 80s) but it's not about you guys that are looking, it's about exploring your attractiveness and growing up. (and we mostly grow up in front of you guys, rather than a convent these days, and trust that you know what it is perhaps?) For the guys that are drooling over a young woman's low cut top in a pub, she's probably more conscious of her bra showing rather than are the guys getting a good look!

Hi Jane, I'll attempt to address your comments now.

Ok, as for female autonomy, agreed, in some senses it exists, but is limited. To be truthful, even male autonomy is a bit dodgy when you think about it. We are all interconnected, and related by power relatioships, which arise from the survival instinct.

The idea that females enjoy autonomy is in the legal sense true, but in the realistic sense, it will be more or less depending on which society one lives in. We are all autonomous within the restrictions of our own society.
Let me try to explain my position more clearly for you. I hold that in the real world, while anyone, male or female 'can' do pretty much what they like, there are serious consequences for doing some things.
For the female, its more difficult, because while a man can usually go where he wants without too much worry, a female cannot, due to her difference in strength from we guys. I don't for a moment suggest that any man SHOULD behave as I outlined that they 'can' in my other post, but the point I was making, is that they 'can' if they choose.

The law is only helpful when there is a chance of the perpetrator of some misconduct sensing a strong chance of being caught. For reasons such as this, I suggest that a womans autonomy to 'go anywhere at any time' is legally true but practically worrisome. I say she is far better off having a man with her if she is going somewhere at night in an out of the way area.

I strongly recommend a read of the book of Ruth in the old testament, if for no other reason than to see some valuable cultural and social insights, and even to get a bit of a 'romance hit' :) Of particular interest in the light of my outrageous post, is the position of young foreign females in Israelite society, and the attitude of young men at that time. I seriously doubt that 'men' have changed much since then.

I can't believe some of the stuff that has been said on this forum, some of which equal the comments of the cleric and the judge! For example look out for Boaz_David's comment about the attitude of young men in the bible to explain a "modern phenomenon" as he calls it, or that he's just "telling it like it is". This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the article says is prevalent but which no one pays attention to unless you are from some controversial minority group. I think that's the central point of the article.

BOAZ_David if you are saying that the fact your stuff was stolen was YOUR fault, then you are making excuses for the thief! Don't play word games. Talk about biased and unclear thinking.

Marg, As a member of a so called 'controversial minority group' let me assure you that while media coverage suggests otherwise, we hardly ever get listened too. They hear us but don't listen. I think this phenomena is happenning here as well (as you have pointed out in reference to 'telling like it is' --- which is more like "I'm telling how I want to tell it like it is"

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>

Dear Boaz, David

Actually, the people most likely to be the victims of violent crime are also the people most likely to be the perpetrators of it; namely young men. It always astonishes me how careful parents are of their teenage daughters and how cavalier they are about their sons, when every statistic indicates it is boys who are most vulnerable and most likely to be beaten, bashed and subjected to violent gang related attacks.
On the provocative clothing issue, I think men need to take responsibility for their own thoughts, feelings, urgings and actions, if they are ever to fully qualify for the term "adult" in all its meanings. The argument reminds me of an incident related by Golda Mier in her memoirs. In the early days of Tel Aviv a serial rapist was on the loose and the Israeli cabinet got together to discuss what they should do. Golda was the only woman in the cabinet and she listened as a man suggested a curfew, that to protect women and girls they should all be compelled to be inside by 9pm. Golda piped up with the following," Good idea, but as its a man doing the raping, perhaps the curfew should compell all men to be off the streets by 9pm." As you can imagine, there was a deathly hush around the table then everyone agreed that perhaps a curfew was not the way to go, after all. Same perspective (or lack thereof) here, it seems to me.

In Part 1 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040217.shtml and Part 2
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040224.shtml Dennis Prager offers a number of reasons why women are dressing more provocatively

eg
“In Part One, I offered two reasons for the increasing exposure of young women's bodies. One was the loss of female roles and identity, leading many young women to announce they are females in the only way left to them -- by showing their body. The other was the near-extinction of the concept of femininity, including the demise of feminine dress.”

He also relates how dress is often used by women to attract men, but dressing for sex and dressing for love are both different, and if women want love and respect, they should be dressing more modestly.

However fashion is also in the equation. To sell new clothes, magazines continuously create new “images” that women try and copy through buying and wearing the “latest” clothes. The whole system degenerates when 8 year old girls start to mimic the fashions of older women by “buying into sexy”.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/graydon.html

I really can’t imagine fathers buying sexually provocative clothes for their young daughters, so maybe mothers and older women should be thinking about being better role models for daughters and younger girls, by being feminine without the need for so much sexually provocative dress.

As a father myself, I encourage my son to respect women as autonomous human beings with rights of their own. I encourage my daughter to believe in herself and to be proud of who she is. Maybe men could provide better role models for their sons to aspire to rather than encouraging them to 'get a leg over' anything in a skirt.

Sexuality is to be celebrated and not used as another tool to keep women 'in their place'.

I am responsible for my own reactions to a woman's appearance. Sure I think sometimes what a woman wears may be inappropriate but that doesn't give any pathetic little man the right to rape or abuse her.

If you judge a woman on appearance alone then you can't really claim to be an adult... or a real man.

Enaj, brilliantly said! and same to you Ambo. And for crying out loud Timkins! Men have just gotta be more adult about the way they view women's (and young people in general's) sexuality. If a woman dressing provocatively messes up your radar about the messages she's sending, maybe it's the receiver, not the transmitter. Venus to Mars! A woman doesn't lose her sense of self worth by dressing provocatively, but by being treated like a piece of meat inadvertently because some guys are busy reacting to the visual stimulus and not reacting to that person/woman as an equal because she has a)big tits b)something else that turns them on. or even c) available by walking in a deserted area late at night. As a woman, i should have the right to go about my business without being a target because i'm alone, (and can't afford to hire a chaperone and shouldn't have to!) or i happen to be wearing something that may be a turn on. Because some male happens to be there at my wrong time is not my fault regardless of what I may/or may not be wearing.

Di,
No one is denying a woman her right to walk down a street, but at the same time no one should be confronted by so many woman who are so often half in / half out of their dresses, or whatever it is that they are nearly wearing. At one time a man could tip his hat to every woman who walked passed, but now a man has to so often "look the other way". That is a loss for both women and men.

The role model that is being presented to younger girls is also not good, and I cannot think of too many reasons why 8 year old girls should be wearing padded bras, waxing their legs, wearing makeup etc. My daughter was the last girl to shave her legs in her class when she was in grade 6.

The situation is not a woman “expressing her sexuality”. It is more to do with emotional manipulation of the male. The female teases the male by the clothes she is almost wearing. She may receive a thrill from that, but the emotional manipulation that she is carrying out on the male eventually makes the male think less of her.

If so many women didn’t flirt it to all and sundry in the shopping centre, or at the local shop, or on the tram, then I think many people, (male and female), would be a lot happier about the situation.

Girls will be girls, and boys will be boys - when was it ever otherwise?

Timkins pines for the repressed sexuality and patriarchal family structures of the 1950s. Much to his chagrine, Father no longer "knows best". He says he can no longer "tip his hat" to women in the street, because he has to "so often look away".

Why does he have to look away? Why does he feel that his "emotions" are being "manipulated". While it is unsurprising that he might feel emotionally incompetent, I suspect that it's not his emotions that are the problem here, but some more basic impulses.

Personally, I celebrate the presence of women who are assertive and comfortable enough with themselves to "flaunt it". My day is improved by the sight of women out and about in the world, and I delight in encountering them in the street. I do not look away, but then again, I have no problems with my sexuality.

Heaven forbid we return to the drab, repressed, monocultural, patriarchal society of the 1950s, as some of the more prolific correspondents to these forums seemingly would have us do.

OOOo k... Wandii, sorry for not getting back in response till now, I'm kinda snowed under with work.

I value your comments, and am glad that my controversial viewpoint has stirred some thinking and the odd bit of 'abuse' :)

For your re-assurance, I totally agree with you about the issue of date rape etc, it is ABsolutely not acceptable, my point was not to justify or support such things, but it is to alert us to the mixed messages sent to others by our dress code at times. The muslims have a point "Dress modestly" but unfortunately they make this a 'law'. The bible also refers to developing ones 'inner beauty' as opposed to outward gaudy trappings and but its not a 'law' its an exhortation.
As I pointed out a few times, differnt people have different thresholds of action. Something might be morally and legally wrong, but dressing like a 'skank' is likely to suggest to the world that one 'is' a skank. Being perceived as such, might be more of a trigger to the weak minded. Consider a man who has fed his mind on Porn (Thanx Bob Brown for supporting the free availability of XXX material from ACT, well done....NOT!) where females are portrayed as not just willing, but eager participants in 'bad' behavior. Skanky dress+Porn fed man= dubious situation. This should be self evident.

MARGS. I referred to the Biblical Book of Ruth to show how unrestrained young men tend to act. Estimates are of 100,000 German women raped by Russian soldiers at the fall of Germany. Things haven't changed much eh ? These are simply facts and observations, not recommendations or justifications.
It is worth comparing and contrasting the attitude of the "young men" with BOAZ (a character in the book) and his relationship with God, and his caring, responsible and protective attitude to vulnerable women.

TIMKINS, its a rare thing when I actually respond to your rather lengthy and hyperlinked posts, but in this case, I think you have touched on a very relevant cultural observation. I.e. the line between male and female being blurred to the point where young females may feel the need to 'exalamation' mark their real femininity, sadly, resorting to the display of their biological bits in a way which tends to send the wrong message :(.

DI, thanx for that frank and fascinating insight into the female mind. "We show off a bit of ... with the hope that some guy will notice us etc" Well, let me assure you, men do notice women, and the main 'brain function' which occurrs as the radar scans the horizon is "Is she miss right, or miss RIGHT NOW" and due to the recent survey that shows females generally percieve the concept 'right now' differently from males, it might be good to qualify that statement a bit more- (ie.. girls think 'ok for a relationship now but not for a life partner.. males think "I want to get her into the sack right now") It turned out at a particular company (one of my suppliers) that over 90% of the girls and guys thought this way when confronted with that statement.

Di, a girl showing heavy duty cleavage, will send the message 'Miss right NOW', whereas a more modestly, yet attractively dressed girl will send the message 'here I am, want to know me better' ? We don't need to see a grand canyon of cleavage to know if a girl has small medium or large breasts (unless she is 'lying' with padding :)

But all this gets back to our social value system. On the issue of dress, and appropriateness and messages. How would it be, if I rolled up to Church with my top 2 shirt buttons undone ? Well, I would feel pretty ok with that myself, but I KNOW that it WILL send a wrong message to my sisters in Christ, not to mention my mrs and kids.

"a girl showing heavy duty cleavage, will send the message 'Miss right NOW', whereas a more modestly, yet attractively dressed girl will send the message 'here I am, want to know me better' ?"

Even when women are "modestly, yet attractively dressed" we are still NOT sending the message "here I am, want to know me better?".

Boaz I bet your one of those men, who, if a women is merely pleasant to you you think you've got a chance.

Your post is clearly about your reactions to women - I think you need to do some work in this area. Er like start seeing women as people instead of vulnerable little victims. We're not all as helpless as you like to think.

David, You are obvioulsy baiting people here and while you might find it amusing many don't. If you one day have the misfortune of bearing witness to rape or having someone close to you becoming a victim of this violence, I hope you think back and reflect on what you have said here. You're attitude towards women is simply pathetic. Grow up.

Hmmm...Ringtail made one of the best comments on this topic thus far,referring to " ...those men, who, if a women is merely pleasant to you you think you've got a chance".

Its about the way us men think about women and how we interact with women. Whether we behave the way we do because we may be; socially conditioned, easily led by our stupid mates, or just plain stooopid ourself, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ASKING FOR IT"! Understand? If a woman smiles at you or her tits are hanging out, you DO NOT RAPE!

Media sexualisation of women is another issue. It is a bit sad that 8 year old girls think they have to diet, and "look sexy", but it cannot be used as another excuse for raping women.

Silent Minority
I don’t think anyone has been advocating that males sexually assault females, and the vast majority of males do not do so. The myth that “all men are rapists” is a myth only, although it has been a myth much perpetrated by the feminist movement in an ongoing attempt to vilify males as much as possible.

But I do wonder how many men now do not contact or talk to women who are half in / half out of their clothing. There are probably quite a few men who avoid such women, and for good reasons.

And I also wonder what happens to a girl or woman who does not want to flaunt her body. Does she have much “choice”, or does she now feel compelled to be seen wearing clothes “just like the other girls”?

Eg
”At the mall, there are entire chains devoted to tween shoppers: stores full of racy clothing, make-up and even lingerie for girls who may not have hit puberty.”
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/index.html

In the world of now highly commercialised sexuality, there is also the negative side which does include STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, and of course the new epidemic that has spread throughout the US and is beginning to occur in Australia also, which is oral sex amongst children in their tweens (ie 8 – 14 yrs old).

All this was somehow overlooked by early feminists in their headlong desire for sexual liberation.

After birth control, a dress code is a powerful way of controlling women and keeping them in their "proper place".

A dress code is an attempt to not only break women's spirit, but to tell her that she must be a certain type of woman "modest" and "feminine".

As a young woman I claim my body and my individuality, men who are so immature as to judge me from the clothes I choose to wear clearly have a lot of growing up to do. And there are quite a few of them in this forum.

I like looking at healthy bodies, whether they be male or female. A healthy young man in singlet and jeans on a hot summer's day is a joy to behold. So is a young woman....

We are only young once, we are not ashamed of our bodies. We are free and far too soon will be anchored by mortgages and sagging physiques.

Youth should not be wasted....with a wink to Oscar Wilde.

Great posts Xena, Ringtail, Wandii and Garra. Timkins, why do you always need to prop up your posts with hyperlink. I've never bothered crossing to them, rather would (believe it or not) hear your opinion without all the pointy headed stats backing you up. Back to women's wear daily. (some of you) Guys tend to define what's out there and supposedly wrongly worn by women by your own personal standards. Ie: if you like big breasts, how many buttons should be undone on a 10AA as compared to a 40DD cup? If you are a leg man, should a woman with tree trunks for legs be chastised for wearing a mini and therefore not exposing legs that are sexually provocative? Especially if mini skirts are so not in fashion? Get a grip! We test it out amonst ourselves before we venture out. (ie: Does this make my bum look big in this?) Yes, girls in Grade 6 might want to test the waters with fashion, makeup, but why do you guys have a problem with it? Because your certain anatomy has a mindset of its own (and yes, I know it's not all of you). But just get over the Eve thing, where we're all hell bent on teasing you to lose control. Most of us have no idea about the fantasies we're inadvertently creating. And should not have to claim responsibility

BOAZ_David – “How would it be, if I rolled up to Church with my top 2 shirt buttons undone ? Well, I would feel pretty ok with that myself, but I KNOW that it WILL send a wrong message to my sisters in Christ, not to mention my mrs and kids.” … Are You Serious?

I think, Jane, that he is.

Worse still, some people take the twaddle he incessantly posts here seriously.

Be afraid, be very afraid. And fasten that top button, won't you ;)

Thanks for that advice garra :-))

All buttons now done up, and just going to check my wardrobe for skank attire. Will burn anything I find that is remotely skankish.

Honestly BOAZ - and Timkins - I think you guys ought to consider therapy. Or at the very least, go have a bex and a lie down.

Boaz and Timkins,

Just to clarify, Jane said BEX and and a lie down. (just in case you confuse [as you are known to do] this as a come on,

Jane and Wandii

Just hope you’re NOT the type of mothers who teach their 8 year old girls how to be sexy (and if you are, that’s OK too).

Off to my medicine cabinet for some BEX now …

Jane and such.
I so much like your name calling and inferences.

Whip me. Beat me. Make me sign bad cheques.

But after many years of surfing and sailing in a number of countries, I built up a very athletic physique. I also had a number of sun spots, and my suggestion now to any person who goes outdoors is to cover up as much as possible.

And if there is a woman who is flaunting herself, then my suggestion to any male is to avoid her as much as possible. She is more than likely to have a “me, me, me” type of thinking, and she is more than likely to be trouble eventually.

I never said all men were rapists, Timkins, and if you bothered to read my previous posts, you'd realise that.

Wandii
I wish to follow up what you said about 'baiting people'. Thanx for the feedback, but I assure you I'm not trying to 'bait' anyone in a malicious or trivial manner. I've made forthright statements of course, and they are aimed at opening thinking. Clearly its working, but...we are not quite 'there' yet. Bear with me ok :)
OH.. I did notice it was a 'bex'.

Now, you said your skin is 'black' right ? This is suggestive of a different cultural background, so I'd like to explore this for a moment. What we expose, or don't expose is normally governed by commonly known standards which are derived from culture. In some Polynesian cultures, to show the breasts is ok, but the 'thigh' is a no-no. When I was in Borneo, most of the ladies had a child hanging off their breasts in church, its no biggy, culturally normal. In village situations, they were quite uninhibited about a fully exposed breast, but this was pretty much married ladies who had children. The young single women would not bear so much, because surprise surprise they actually know that exposed nubile female bodies are a turn on for men. (shock horror).

Now, for the record, all my comments about appropriate attire are equally directed at MEN as well as women. The point is not to deny or feel shame about this, (when its not flaunting or deliberate) but to realize that we DO effect our opposite gender, and its better to keep the more 'primal' instincts under brain control rather than 'other' control.

Do for others, as you would have them do for you. It boils down to what is at the centre of our being and aim in life. Do we seek to use our sexuality as some kind of social currency ? to 'get' what we want ? Or, do we put it into a healthy context and use it for upbuilding and mutual comfort and encouragement ?

Jane, thanx for the helpful advice about therapy and a B -ex :)

I think I'm ok, our main problem is that you and others seem to be projecting every worst case media stereotype myth and image about hyper fundamentalist bible thumpers onto what I say. You probably think I'm a cupboard AMISH :) using this forum to 'come out' ?

Don't get caught up in this issue as some incredible huge big deal that is 'the focus of what I live for'.

I'm on about sensitivity and thoughtfulness, and encourage all of us to try to act in ways which will always build up, rather than tear down. How we dress is just one part of that bigger piccy. It applies to how we speak, whether we 'use' people or not for our own social advancement, how we treat others in business and the work place etc.

But most of all, I believe we will be much more fulfilled people when we are rightly related to God through Christ. You would be amazed how it all 'comes together' with Him in our lives and hearts

Boaz

"But most of all, I believe we will be much more fulfilled people when we are rightly related to God through Christ. You would be amazed how it all 'comes together' with Him in our lives and hearts"

The above is what many posters mean by 'forcing the bible down our throats'. The above statement is not necessary - it does not relate to the issue, nor will it prevent women from being viewed as either madonnas or whores, nor does it make any difference to my life. I am happy and fulfilled as I am. I choose to wear what I like, how a man interprets my appearance is his problem - not mine.

Your provocative statements to this forum are a deliberate attempt to control the debate eg:

"I've made forthright statements of course, and they are aimed at opening thinking. Clearly its working, but...we are not quite 'there' yet."

When is "there yet" - when you have converted us all? When we women are all buttoned up and dressed according to your mores?

You claim that appropriate dress applies equally to men as well. Quite frankly I wish men would 'sex' it up a little more, most men dress in an almost antisexual manner - very boring. I like eye-candy as much as the next man. ;)

Ringtail - nicely said.
Not sure that a lot of us know how to sex it up a bit :( ,
especially once the youthful flat stomach does not sit so flat anymore.

So now it has become revealed (no pun intended). Women actually want men to become “eye candy”.

If a boy is allowed a father, then the father will have to take his young son aside, and explain to him that he must always respect women regardless of what they do, and he must become a sperm donor, a paypacket, and eye candy for women.

The father and young son can then bond by going to the clothes store and spend hours searching through clothes for that “sexy” little number.

Robert, why thank you. If I can look hot at age 45 then you can too. Its all about confidence and just a little style baby.

Cheers

Hmm sexing it up with a fat hairy belly... just thinking about my own situation. I'm down the gym each day in the hope that I can eventually fit into those Metrosexual type threads down at the men's boutiques, ;).... the male equivalent of mutton dressed as lamb? :P Perhaps I should be content to dress "boring", for a while anyway. ;)

I just can't figure out about the sunscreen and don't go there baby by Timkins, is the me, me, me you've experienced whilst doing the green iguana all over the world been about slip, slop and a little slap?

Ringtail, I'm working on it but despite having great legs I don't think I am at risk of the boss insisting that I wear short shorts or a skimpy shirt (got to keep on the topic a bit). I hold up fairly well for my advanced age (just a tiny bit smaller than yours Ringtail).

I do think there is a bit of a cultural cringe thing for guys dressing "sexed up". Maybe too much hangover from the 70's and the shirts unbuttoned with the necklaces and hairy chest thing (what a stereotype image). The insincere sleeze kind of image.

I've been somewhat saddened by the way much of the discussion has gone - it appears to have degenerated in part into a discussion of the character of women who choose to dress in a manner not considered modest by some. Dress standards appear to be massively influenced by culture and climate, what appears to be lacking in modesty in our culture would be shockingly overdressed in some cultures and what is modest here is brazen hussy stuff in other cultures.

The article was about a number of items but I didn't see that as one of them. I'm not sure I know enough about the background on the Susie Zhang issue to have a serious opinion.

- Was the use of skimpy clothing an employment condition when she took on the job?

- Is such a condition appropriate in a hotel (as opposed to a strip club where it might be relevant)? Personally I think not but I can understand both sides of the argument.

The perfect title for the Timkins movie:

"Endless Bummer"

Di,
I think you have got the logic partly correct. With Australia having one of the highest skin cancer rates in the world, it is best to cover up as much as possible when outdoors, and not try to expose as much skin as possible.

And if a woman is intentionally acting like superficial “eye candy”, and intentionally flaunting her body in an attempt to attract a male’s attention, it would be best for him to ignore her completely. She is trying to emotionally manipulate him, and she will probably be doing so again, so there would be no real future in the relationship for that man.

And of course children can become caught up in all of this “buying into sexy”. http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/index.html To understand that you should perhaps read the link provided. If you don’t bother to read the links provided, then don’t bother trying to malign myself, or any other male thankyou.

Ringy, what would I do without your constant reminders of what I am allowed and not allowed to say on 'onlineOPINION' :) as I check my words, they are prefaced by "I believe..." hence. "opinion" and in my case, conviction.

You never need regard such opinions as 'ramming down your throat' because they dont contain such words as "YOU MUST/SHOULD/HAVE TO" which would be the 'sin' for which you constantly hold me accountable.

I don't consider your expressed opinions as ramming them down my throat, I view u (and the rest) as valuable individuals who matter and count.

Now, I challenge your view about people being 'eye candy'. I suggest that the value system behind such a comment is lamentably shallow. We can see attractiveness and its opposite without 'flaunting'. Why not strive to put this part of human nature in a very well controlled slot in our overall lives ? Why not seek the deeper aspects of human interaction with that as the icing on the cake ? Kylie Mynogue has just had a sobering reminder that all the flauting in the world gets you NOwhere when the great leveller, the BIG C suddenly rears its ugly head in our lives. All of a sudden, its 'family, close friends, doctors' etc

So, on the topic, while the Muslims seem to have erred in the way they want to 'control' female dress based on specific descriptions of what they should wear, I urge all of us to consider a general code of modesty, which demonstrates we are much more than 'eye candy'. Common sense and cultural concensus under God, should be our guide there, not 'thou shalt wear/not wear such and such'

Personal Autonomy should always be subject to cultural acceptability, or we may have 'troubled times' because we are spitting in the face of our community.

Robert I enjoy the thought you put into your posts. I do agree with your observation about the ‘hairy chest/gold chain’ look. That was never sexy. Sex appeal isn’t about how much skin you can reveal – that’s the province of the young anyway.

For example, Gerard Depardieu; big, over weight and as sexy as hell when he wants to be. Its all about confidence and attitude. I don’t believe this is off topic as it is all about how we see ourselves. A man who is well groomed and who has put thought into his appearance is far more alluring than one who clearly doesn’t care. Women want lovers who are sensitive and caring. Someone who thinks he doesn’t have to put in any effort is about as sexy as a lump of cold porridge. I think there is a poster or two who fits that image. ;)

I take your point about whether a particular look is a requirement of employment. One could not work in the ‘adult’ entertainment industry wearing blunnies and overalls – although I think that work clothes on a healthy body is far sexier than tinsel and feathers. But then, I’m a down to earth sort of gal.

From what I understand about the article, the wearing of a mini skirt was not essential to the job. Therefore, what one chooses to wear in one’s private life is not a good enough reason to have to wear the same to work.

I remember when living in the USA I worked as a waitress and I had to wear tight T-Short and short shorts – I really didn’t like it very much, but needed the money and that was the uniform. Was the judge correct? Only if the miniskirt was a requirement for the job.

What we choose to wear in our private lives is our business and should not be used to judge us. Besides its fun. Who needs to be serious, ernest & worthy all the time? Well, I could name a poster or two - but that would be shallow. ;)

Ringtail, the only place I see private dress standards being relevant to the workplace is where an attempt is made to claim an exemption from the rules based on beliefs/values.

That would be someone who refused to wear a standard uniform at work/school etc because of religious beliefs and yet dressed outside work in a manner which was inconsistant with the claim's used to justify the work issue. Seems kind of unlikely. Even in that context there is a difference between what someone may choose to wear amongst friends and what they might choose to wear in a public place.

Thanks for your interesting input into this and other discussions. Although we may disagree from time to time you generally put your views in a way that helps my understanding of where you are coming from. That is one of the key aspects of forum's such as this for me.

Boaz_David, I think that a reading of Ringtails other posts does not convey a value system that puts the emphasis on "eye-candy". Physical beauty is one aspect of human beings which can easily be appreciated. It does not mean that a person is only valued for that aspect of their whole but it is a real part of the human makeup. Whilst shallow relationships based only on how someone looks (or the size of their bank balance) are very unhealthy, enjoying beauty is not. Unhealthy attitudes to the human body are in my view a significant factor in a lot of social issues society faces, maybe when we get past the idea that there is something bad about the body or appreciating it then we can move on to a healthier society.

RObert,
I think that there have been many posts saying that “if you’ve got it - flaunt it, because it is fun”. However this depends on what “it” is. Our society has a definition of what beauty is, and more often than not, that definition has come from advertising and from the media. It is not a natural definition.

Having been on many boats etc, I have seen many people in various states of dress or undress, and more often than not, the people with the most beautiful bodies (by the media’s definition of beautiful) were usually the most useless. When it came to actually doing something like sailing the boat, it was best to put the “beautiful” people in the cabin and kept out of the way.

It has to be remembered that the majority of charges of sexual assault, sexual harassment etc are on males. This is not necessarily because the males are at fault, but because how the system currently operates. The idea is that the woman can do whatever she wants, and if something goes wrong, the male is given the blame somehow or other.

Therefore the male should ignore any woman that is flaunting herself. She is attempting emotional manipulation, and probably useless at most things anyway (except flaunting herself). If the male ignores her, he is less likely to be charged or accused of something also.

The waitress probably has a right to complain about having to wear short dresses at work, but that workplace would be extremely rare. It would be the exception and not the norm. The author runs a feminist web-site, and feminists will routinely pick on the exceptions and try and make it appear as though it is the norm. It is their tools of trade.

Timkins, timkins, timkins, you answer my post about a woman intentionally flaunting herself. Non Non, a bikini or a one piece? I'll have more skin cancers being an ex beach bunny than lovers approaching me on the beach. (Can't believe i used to waste my time that way!) We really just wanted the perfect tan, not the man. And if it got your eyes off the swell, well! Swell! A good day at the beach, nothing deeper than that, unless of course, you got dumped! This is so off the beaten track of the article!

Timkins, I'm largely in agreement with your comments from your last post. You might note the point Ringtail made about confidence and style/care, neither are about the media definition of beauty.

If there is a difference in usefulness between the "beautiful people" and the not so well endowed it is probably a spin off of being spoilt through out life. I've also met some very useless people who don't have good looks as an excuse and some good looking ones who work well.

I don't know the background of the author, the terminology certainly sounded feminist but so what? I am in agreement with the feminist agenda's which are about people being treated as people. I'm also strongly opposed to those agenda's which seek to divide us (in my view an misuse of feminism to persue other goals).

If skimpy attire is not specifically relevant to the job then demanding it in the workplace is inappropriate regardless of how the person chooses to dress elsewhere.

In terms of people to avoid for relationships I'm more concerned about dress which indicates big insecurities. I don't think I can define that clearly but the level of cover up does not have to be a factor - I'd probably be nervous about some showing significant body phobia's as well as very revealing in an inappropriate setting.

I'm not to aware of anybody dressing specifically to manipulate me especially when I am meeting new people. Again if that was happening there are probably some other behavior's which might concern me more. I like balance, dress up for dress up times and down and scruffy in the garden or other places it suits.

Well said Robert! Now just promise us you'll never climb into a safari suit no matter how tempted. I like your analogy about dressing up and down for the occasion, not the person.

I hope it is all clear now Robert. You can’t tell a woman what she can or can’t do, and you can’t tell a woman what she should or should not be wearing.

However! You have to dress as though you are confident and sexy, and you can’t be wearing a Safari Suit, even though they were once bought in mass numbers by women for their husbands and sons.

If all this seems confusing or hypocritical, then it’s probably because you have a male mind.

I think I’ll keep spending my money on boats and kids.

Timkins – don’t you understand irony? I don’t think that Di would seriously tell a man that he can or cannot wear a safari suit. Despite the fact that men in safari suits look ridiculous. But if you want to wear one Timkins, you go right ahead. Go right ahead and wear whatever you like.

Di, I might struggle in the clothing taste department from time to time but I think you are safe on the safari suit front.

Timkins, I think the comments were meant a bit more lightly than that. Hopefully Di won't be trying to get me to go to work in a mini skirt. I did not feel like my autonomy was threatened by Di in her comment and I can't think of anything as bad as the safari suit in the female wardrobe except clothing which does not suit the figure (bike pants on really fat women maybe). So Di if you are really overweight promise me you will leave the bike pants alone ;)

As I've commented on previously I do think that we are in a period of adjustment regarding gender roles. If that is the case hopefully many of your concerns (some shared by me) are a product of the transition and will be resolved if we can maintain healthy dialog. I work on the assumtion that most of the posters to this forum are people doing the best with what thay know and based on their life journey so far and their world views. I want to understand why things which seem unjust or harmful are supported by people who care about the world they live in and to try and help them understand why I support what I do. There is such an opportunity here to communicate with people from very different viewpoints, it is safe place to do so and involves a wide range of approaches. Awesome stuff.

Robert, I certainly did not intend to fashion challenge you, and am suitably heartened (and relieved) by the fact that you have declared yourself Un-safari-suited. See guys? Fashion can be lighthearted and fun, not laden full of Jezebel intentions! Now Timkins, hope you're wearing a rash shirt these days. And no, Robert, my bum doesn't look big in bike shorts. But hey, they're so last millenia! Hope you're not wearing them!

Di, any fashion challenge here is self imposed rather than directed from outside.

Now for an attempt to try this stuff back to the topic and sum up my views on this.
There is a big difference between good natured discussion about clothing style and someone in a position of power ordering someone into skimpy clothing (where that is not clearly defined up front and specifically related to the job).

Someone who wears very revealing clothes in a setting which is unsafe is not initiating or inviting a crime but is increasing their chances of being the victim of the crime just as leaving a window unlocked is not inviting somebody to enter but if you are unwilling to be robbed you lock the window. If the neighbourhood is a good one then the unlocked window is less of a risk.

We do have a serious skin cancer issue in this country but that probably is not a big reason for covering up at indoor functions or going out at night.

Some guys are not attracted to women who wear revealing clothes, probably not likley to be compatable anyway so that seems like a good thing.

I like people to dress for the occasion, up or down as needed. I don't mind the idea of someone showing that they think enough of me to dress to impress on a suitable occasion.

Robert,
I think your summation is accurate enough. However there is the children aspect to consider in all of this fashion and autonomy. At one time my daughter would wear her sun top all day, but now that she is older, I have great difficulties in getting her to wear it at all.

I would think that this is because of peer group pressure, and because of the magazines she wants to read, and none of the fashions in those magazines include a sun top, but nearly all advertise the “sporty” or “sunny” look. These trendy fashions are not necessarily healthy for children eventually.

I am grateful, I am grateful I am a free spirit, I am grateful to be proud to be a woman, I am grateful I have a sense of fun, I am grateful I am intelligent enough not to be a fashion victim and wear what I like and what makes me feel good (which applies to most women except for Paris Hilton - tragic fashion victim), I am grateful not to be in countries where women are forced to cover up. I am grateful I am not a man because I think I would be in a permanent state of confusion.

But most of all I am grateful NOT to be timkins daughter.

;)

Zena,
Thanks for the insult, although it was unsubstantiated and without reference to anything, and you know next to nothing about my daughter or myself.

However as a father and a parent I do have rights and duties to ensure that my daughter is dressed suitably, and that does include wearing sun protection.

Unfortunately it becomes very difficult when there are so many messages being sent from the media that encourage children to wear the fashions and act the part of adult celebrities, many of whom would not be good role models even for other adults.

Timtam no one is disputing the use of sunscreen and that's not what the topic is about.

Reading your posts leads me to believe that you exercise an extreme level of control over your daughter. If this is not the case then, please, you are welcome to disabuse me of that notion.

I am very grateful that I share my life with open minded people who love me for who I am rather than how I look.

thanks for the post Xena, and i am rather glad we are not Timkins' daughters, otherwise i would suspect he would be locking us up in the attic until we were well past our use by date! (regardless of what we are wearing!) Robert, my whole intention was to demystify the way you see us clothed ( or unclothed) and how us women see it. It's been a long road to Damascus, but honestly, unless we're the Angelina Jolie, coming to a pub near you, we all kind of figure it looks good (and hopefully we'll meet a guy). I think that we women are not too sure (still) about how you guys think on the visual thing. My partner of eight years recently told me he thought i looked sexy in this certain number (and no, we're not talking about a safari suit!) which I certainly saw as an old flanellette "comfort" number. Go figure. I chucked it in the bin anyway. Horses for courses. I must say, I have certainly enjoyed this forum and you guys opening up the way you see it on your side. It's been an entertaining, insightful and delightful to and fro.

Xena,
You can spend time outdoors feeling autonomous without suitable clothing protection from the sun I suppose. Clothing that does not provide suitable protection is frequently being advertised for women, but I don’t allow my daughter to wear such clothing, as a parental duty to protect her skin from skin cancer.

But it is really not for me to” disabuse” your inferences or insults about myself and my daughter, it is for you to properly prove them in the first place. I have noticed in your posts you rarely try and prove what you say, but expect others to automatically believe what you write.

It can be arranged that a third party checks that you know who I am, and who my daughter is. If you can’t provide such simple details, then your rather personalised insults and inferences regards myself and my daughter are definitely unsubstantiated (ie Made Up).

Your unsubstantiated personalised insults and inferences are not a form of debate, but another form of “emotional manipulation” that I have written about previously, and I don’t equate “emotional manipulation” from a woman as being the same as autonomy.

Your unsubstantiated personalised insults and inferences about another person who posts onto this forum also constitutes flaming, and you are quite free to recommend that your own posts be deleted.

Di,
Please provide your substantiated evidence that my daughter is locked in the attic or anywhere else.

If you can’t provide this evidence then and you are quite free to recommend that your own post be deleted also.

Hi team, er.. Di, have u "got religion" or something ? referring to the road to Damascus is kinda like honey to a bee with me, makes me want to explore more, but that would be off topic.

TOPIC.
Suzie Zhang. I tend to support the magistrates view, because her extra work behavior showed that she had no qualms about being viewed as a 'sex object' i.e. miniskirts and sexy poses in a bikini. The point the magistrate raised, would not apply for a conservative girl who had not done these things, but in a case which is required to examine evidence, the attitude and attire of the girl in question are actually 'facts' which are relevant to the essense of the complaint "It made me into a sex object". The magistrate is correct in pointing out that 'being a sex object' is something she has no problem with, and it is on the public record, directly contradicting her expression of feeling like a sex object, and therefore her complaint is without foundation. I have little sympathy for her, though I would have strong sympathy for a girl who had not displayed her self thus, and complained in a similar way. Zhang appears to have been after BUCKs. The magistrate has a right to make a determination of her true motivation, based on evidence. I would make the same call if it was a guy who complained about the same issue.

I can also see the point of the 'contra' side, about a boss not being able to dictate how an employee should dress, and I do tend to support the idea that 'dress code' should be an up front 'here are the rules, read them and if u can't follow them, walk now' kind of thing. At the same time, I feel that a boss has a right to guide the dress code of the employees in 'harmony with the goals and atmosphere of the establishment'. A girl in a granny/librarian outfit working as
the 'image girl' for a gym kinda just does not cut it.

Robert and Ringtail,

From what I understand, there did exist an agreement between Susie Zhang and her employer that she would wear a mini skirt in the gaming area.

Her main complaint was that it amounted to sex discrimination on the basis that it made her feel like a sex object, and that another woman employed in the same area was not also made to wear a mini-skirt.

I think the point of the article is that although there may have been legitimate legal grounds on which the decision was based, the comments made by the magistrate in his judgment about Zhang wearing a mini-skirt socially and having posed in FHM were deeply inappropriate. This is especially so after the furore that arose out of similarly inappropriate comments being made by the Muslim cleric.

Thanks margs, for the clarification. Its that old attitude again where women are judged as mere objects based on a limited view. For example the judge a view years ago who declared that a woman wouldn't be so troubled by rape because she worked as a prostitute. Ignoring the whole choice, power, autonomy aspect. When are attitudes like this going to die out?

Well I have to say that I am impressed by some of the male posters to this forum like Robert, even though we don't always agree at least we can communicate. Thanks to those guys out there who are trying to make an effort to understand. AW, I've gorn all mushy.

Timkins, did not mean to insult you about locking your daughters up in the attic. NO offence intended and can't substantiate with a hyperlink to a bad Virginia Andrews novel. Just a bit of mucking around re slip, slop, slap.

As the previous poster said, this forum has, I think,, done some mighty nice sharing stuff and now maybe see it differently from sharing our views and being quite open. I know i do. Don't get too excited David BOAZ on the Damscus stuff I said before, it was purely what if. Now I'm climbing into my thigh high leather stilleto boots, with fishnet stockings and a cheeky satin corset (Calvin Klien of course) with a cherry on top and my untamed, wild mane of tousled blonde hair blowing in the wind, whilst I ride, on a big black stallion (natch!) into the horizon, into another forum..... (I once wrote a romance novel, sorry! can't help it)

Di, ur a character, I hope all that colorful attire portrayal was imaginary, I don't find anything very exciting about it, but then again, I'm just a wowser goody 2 shoes conservative who has no life :)
...right ?
I might collaborate with you one day on a 'romantic' novel (but not a romance novel) where the setting is the steamy tropical South China sea and surrounding Islands. But my main claim to fame story wise is that I once got dysentary, and had to drop my dacks in front of a mixed crowd of about 30 people, while being carried to the river edge on the way to hospital, where in the middle of the river (which was flooded) with logs and debris floating by, and the overwhelming darkness, our motor suddenly fell into the drink ! Drifting....drifting.... out of control..

but wait...theres MORE, but you'll have to buy the book 0_- :)

Glad to see you can inject some humor into the discourse.

Ringtail, thanks for the kind words. I'm a strong believer in trying to build understanding and find the forums great for that.

Di, is that scene available on DVD? Thanks for your injection of humour into the discussion. I'd certainly prefer to see your scene than David's (effective story telling though David and it might make an interesting painting).

Are we going for the 100 posts award here? This forum is starting to remind me of Coronation Street or The Bold & The Beautiful. ;) Timkins, which one are you? The Bold or tthe Beautiful? ;)

Wow Di - you old romantic you.

Timkins - wish I could, like Di, apologise to you. I do apologise to any inferred slur to your daughter - an innocent.

However, unlike many posters who reveal a great deal of empathy in their posts eg, RObert & BD. I never see any hint of understanding from you towards others who hold different POV's. Even when people such as ringtail has stated that they agree with a point you have made - you never acknowledge this - no doubt because you have disagreed with ringtail vehemently over many issues. Try a little understanding - you have nothing to lose.

As for 'proving' anything on these forums - if you think your internet links and stats prove anything then you are very wrong. Anyone can 'Google' their way around and prove that black is white if they want. You miss the point of this forum which is a discussion of a variety of views - if you want I can provide a plethora of links describing sexist judgements, however I prefer the thrust and parry of discussion than expecting someone to a) read my links and b) believe them anyway.

I've probably just wasted my time on timkins yet again.

Xena, you are right in your last post, but at least these guys have a great sense of humour, which is a good barrier breakdown. I don't think that any posters have not had the issue in hand and at least we've thrown it back and forth with banter and not too many insultss (even if we've gone off track). You obviously haven't come across the Col Rouge who left his sense of humour at the door and gives some very harsh hand me down (Indonesian style) judgements on posters. Summing up the clothing debate...women have always been judged (and probably men have too, but to much lesser discrimination) by their attire (or lack of) regardless of the intention of the wearer. I don't think the wearer should cop any discrimination or abuse by the clothing they choose to wear (be it unintentionally or deliberately revealing), daggy or just plain unattractive. Judging by the way society is, it is still a long road to go. I still think the judge who made that decision should be made to walk down Oxford Street in a leather miniskirt with fishnet stockings and red stilletos with a blond wig on and see how much "deference" he gets treated rather than in his sheepskin wig and black cloak, but hey! That may well be how he dresses for his dominatrix appointments anyway!

I've got absolutely nothing to say on this topic but thought I had better post something so BOAZ_David knows I'm still around.