Richmond, KY: Where the tolerance level is shorter than the dresses
It appears the tolerance level of her neighbors was shorter than her dress. When 20-year old Kymberly Clem went to the Richmond Mall* wearing a dress she had bought there the day before, she apparently seemed too attractive to be allowed to stay. She was approached by a security guard who humiliated her and forced her to leave because he said that several women had complained to him that their husbands were staring at her. (For the basics, see these stories in the Richmond Register and Fox News. The Fox story includes a photo of the dress.)
If we accept the facts as reported in the Richmond Register then there are all kinds of things wrong here. First of all, if these women's husbands were staring at Clem so much as to cause a noticeable disruption for their wives, who then complained to a security guard, why was his reaction not - as someone suggested on the body-positivity forum Going Braless (membership required to post) - to ask Clem if she was being made to feel uncomfortable or threatened by the leering men? Why did the women not complain to their husbands if the husbands' behavior was the problem? Why did the security guard feel like their request was valid? And given that he did cave in to the requests of a few unhappy customers, why did he then proceed to humiliate Clem by staring at her, asking her to turn around slowly, and eventually following her out of the mall? It is beyond disturbing that a woman should be asked to leave a place because men are allegedly leering at her, and worse to then be subjected to the leering gaze of the one asking her to leave. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say this begins to feel like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The story is representative of dangerous trends in the U.S. Remember Kyla Ebbert who last year was threatened with being kicked off her Southwest Airlines flight because her skirt was too short? Or Setara Qassim who was told to cover herself with a blanket if she wanted to stay on her flight? Then there are writers like Wendy Shalit of Girls Gone Mild and Ariel Levy (author of Female Chauvinist Pigs) and Pamela Paul. These writers legitimize the censorious intolerance of those who would tell women how they must dress and who would shame them for dressing in ways that are considered erotic or sexy, or simply in ways that are cool and comfortable.
This all matters for the sake of individual freedom of expression in dress. It also matters for the sake of freedom of expression in media. The whole "community standards" test for obscenity and indecency depends on being able to identify those standards somehow. If this vocal minority has it's way, and wins often enough, it begins to seem like they are the only ones with standards and values and morals. The rest of us need to be much more vocal in support of our values: body-positivity, self-confidence, love, compassion, diversity, freedom, creativity. We need to be out there daily pushing back at the vocal minority. We cannot allow the shame around bodies to continue as "standard."
There may be a lot of skin on display in much of the country but we are constantly apologizing for it, and that must stop. As JanieBelle blogged at her place, you see it even in the responses in defense of Ms. Clem. Her sister, in talking about how out of hand this has gotten says that the skirt might have been short but it didn't show her buttocks (as if then bad behavior on the part of other mallgoers would somehow be acceptable) and a blogger is quoted in the Richmond Register story saying “It was short, but showed nothing that is illegal to show. Personally, I’ve seen worse on Eastern’s campus than what this young lady was wearing.” It's subtle, but words like "worse" give the impression that body display is bad and that while this dress might be less bad than another, it still isn't really okay.
The laws in the United States about decency and bodies are reminiscent of geometry lessons. This proportion of the breast must be covered or that proportion of the buttocks. You need a protractor to figure it out. And it is different from state to state. We have cousins visiting from the Netherlands and I was teasing their teenage sons (16 and 18), who didn't want to go to the beach with the adults. I said "But there will be girls there, in bikinis!" (They'd been admiring some of the young women working at a restaurant where we'd eaten the day before.) Their dad said to me, "but they can see girls naked on the beaches at home." Part of the message was "why do you people feel so strange about your bodies?!" (Of course it could be argued that covering a bit of the body makes it more enticing, and that the real "problem" with Ms. Clem's dress was that it covered just enough to be very erotic, and that being erotic is somehow negative.)
We are a pluralistic nation with a great deal of diversity. Standards of dress vary tremendously across groups. It should not be acceptable for one group to impose its standards on another group. It should certainly not be acceptable for members of a group to shame others in public places.
*Richmond, population approximately 32,000, is just southeast of Lexington, KY.
Technorati Tags: decency, Kymberly Clem, free speech, sexuality, law, women
Standards
It's curious how the discussions on this issue evolve. If you are really curious about the dress (or shirt as some claim), there is a video in which Kymberly Clem is wearing it.
But in reality, the dress itself is irrelevant, and discussion about the specifics of the dress are worryingly reminiscent of those around rape, in which some people claim a woman deserves to be raped if she dresses in a way that attrscts male interest. The issue is really one of discrimination, in which if people do not like the way you look, you can be punished. It is sometimes helpful, as suggested in Elizabeth's link to a women's discussion group, to simply change the actors in the scene and see how it looks. Let us imagine that Kymberly was disabled, or of a certain race or religious group for a moment.
Students of the concept of Male Gaze, will recognise the darker patriarchal threads in which men can look at a woman in ways that clearly some people felt inapproppriate, and the woman is punished. Elizabeth makes reference to cultures that control women's appearance. Let us consider how many people have been maimed or killed to supposedly 'rescue' those women, yet the same ideology is apparently accepted in their own countries.
Exactly so, Michael
Exactly so, Michael
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
The story is representative
The story is representative of dangerous trends in the U.S.
It most certainly is a dangerous precedent that is being set. If a woman can be forced to leave a mall because other shoppers do not like what she is wearing, how far can this go? I guess I, as a Black woman wearing long, Afrocentric braids, could be asked to leave also since I could be threatening to some other mall customer. The wives in this story have been trained oh so well to support patriarchy: blame the woman, ask her to change her way of being or ask her to leave and do not hold the men accountable whatsoever for their behavior.
I repeatedly hear people criticizing women for what we wear. If we wear something sexy, we are "sluts." If we dress conservatively, we are "old maids". Women can't win if we play this game. To me, the only way to win is to not play this game. We have the right to decide to wear what makes us feel good, comfortable, beautiful and sexy. We have to stand up for ourselves, like Ms. Clem is doing, if someone tries to take that fundamental right away from us.
Women, and what we wear, are constantly being blamed for the inappropriate, harassing and abusive behavior of some men in public life. If we wear something we think is beautiful and do not go out of our way to hide every aspect of our body, we are blamed if we are stared at, ogled, leered at, assaulted or raped. This is insanity. I have heard men say that if women do not like being looked over or stared at then "cover up" and don't wear things that attract men's attention. Translation: I, as a man choose not to exercise any self-discipline or self-control. It's all on you.
The other issue is that just about anything a woman wears, from the most plain and unrevealing, to the most ornate and sexy, can attract a man's attention, whether she wants the attention or not. What excuse do these men have when women, wearing a plain, baggy t-shirt and jeans are harassed, leered at, assaulted or raped? Is it our fault then for being a woman and having curves? Or, maybe we should not have been walking in that part of town. Whatever way you look at it, our patriarchal society will make it the woman's fault. But, the fault is not in what women wear. The fault lies in a culture where women are seen as inferior, where gender inequality is commonplace, and where parts of the female body are often exploited. If a person has honor and respect in their heart for a woman as a human being in her own right, that makes it much harder to ogle and harass her. It also makes it harder to dictate to her what she can and can't wear.
I concur and question
I agree with the points Bethany makes overall. This patriarchal society is definitely not a benevolent patriarchy with respect to the female population. This patriarchy definitely has a dual standard and men and women have to operate under a different set of rules.
That is a bad thing. Men give up any moral high ground by insisting on this dual standard. Women who reflect those ‘values’, the sort who complained about Ms. Clem’s attire, fall on the scale of values somewhere below the men.
The question I ask is where one’s Rights begin. I am legally blind. So much so that I use a cane to ensure I do not run into things. I have peripheral vision. I notice people staring at me constantly. Do I have a right to demand others not stare at me? Conversely, when I had focal vision, I saw many things. I saw women on the beach in bikinis that had less material than the standard dinner napkin. Did I not have a right to enjoy the view? I saw the trend to dress in loose fitting pants that barely hung on hips and let me know what brand of boxers the wearer chose. Did I have a right, because I found this mode of dress unappealing, to demand that the person not be allowed in public?
Clothes, it seems to me, have two purposes. One is comfort and the other is to make a statement. In either case, to complain about another’s dress is akin to my most un-favorite ‘clothing situation’; “Put on a jacket, you are making me cold,” or “Go change into something cooler, I’m hot.”
Let me limit this by making it clear that clothes, mode of dress, is never an invitation. At the moment clothes evoke a reaction beyond appreciation, all bets are off.
Clothes do make a statement. Intended or not. To tell Ms. Clem, or anyone else, that they must leave because of a statement they have made is exactly an abrogation of the First Amendment.
Okay, before the argument is made, if the invitation specifies Black Tie and I show up in cut-offs and huaraches I will not expect to get in to the party.
Blaming women, constricting standards... scary times
Michael, Bethany, I agree. It is very much the same tendency. Blaming women for the behavior of those around them is part of how patriarchy hangs on. And added to the trends toward increasingly restrictive standards of "modesty" it makes this an especially scary time in the US.
Bethany wrote:
I couldn't agree more. And we need to stand up for each other, too!
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
A slightly different case
Everything that has been said so far on this page is true. But what's wrong with a guy checking a girl out? Girls check guys out as well, maybe not to the same extent but they still do. And there are different levels of 'staring', from the indescrete stare to a standing in front of the person ogling her openly. Many stares are not overly sexual, I will look at an attractive woman for a few seconds because what I see makes me feel good, it's like looking at anything of beauty.
But this case isn't so much about the men staring as it is about a few upset, ?jealous?, wives and 1 power-abusing guard. It's the wives that caused the problem to begin with, this isn't about the girl being upset that men were looking at her, she's upset that women responded to those stares negatively and one guard took advantage of his position and acted like a complete jerk.
So, yeah, there are men out there who overstep their boundaries when taking in something they find beautiful, but there are just as many women who react just as improperly in my opionon as the men but for the oposite reason.
Eric writes and contributes to public artices posted in the name of "The Sex Toy Life ".
"But what's wrong with a guy
"But what's wrong with a guy checking a girl out?"
I don't think that there's anything wrong with a guy checking a girl out as long as he does not harrass, stalk, or make her uncomfortable by staring at her...and long as by doing so he is not breaking trust with someone else.
"But this case isn't so much about the men staring as it is about a few upset, ?jealous?, wives and 1 power-abusing guard. It's the wives that caused the problem to begin with, this isn't about the girl being upset that men were looking at her, she's upset that women responded to those stares negatively and one guard took advantage of his position and acted like a complete jerk."
Statistically, these wives most likely have a relationship understanding that defines “lusting in one’s heart” as cheating. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable for these women to feel betrayed and angry when their husbands visibly violated their relationship understanding.
What they don't have a right to do is have the authorities harass a woman who is not part of their relationship understanding.
How we look at each other
Elizabeth wrote:
"First of all, if these women's husbands were staring at Clem so much as to cause a noticeable disruption for their wives, who then complained to a security guard, why was his reaction not - as someone suggested on the body-positivity forum Going Braless (membership required to post) - to ask Clem if she was being made to feel uncomfortable or threatened by the leering men?"
This is a great question. In the interview I saw of Kymberly, she did not mention if she felt uncomfortable because of the way the husbands looked at her. But if she was uncomfortable, it seems to me she would have had every reason to be.
Most women do not complain about a passing, discreet glance that lasts for a few seconds from a man that is most likely due to attraction. That is not staring. Staring is more invasive and intrusive and possibly violating of the person being stared at. Women are often culturally conditioned to ignore this kind of behavior. But, we may be doing so to our own detriment. Being stared or leered at should not necessarily be brushed off as nothing and it may not be just about attraction. Here's a passage from some self-defense literature I like on this very topic and how it relates to robberies http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbery_avoidance.html#personal_safety:
Tip #7 Watch to see who is watching you.
An integral part of a robbery is the "interview." It is during this time that the criminal selects someone and then decides if he can successfully rob that person.
Reason: Even if you are the most drop-dead gorgeous person on the planet, there are cultural rules as to how long one can acceptably look at you. Too much attention is a danger sign. While many women regularly deal with unwanted attention by looking away and pretending not to notice, this behavior can also set you up for a crime. By turning away from someone, you can also fail to see if he starts approaching you. If someone is paying too much attention, walk wide, but check out of the side of your eye to be sure that he has not decided to follow you.
I'm not saying the husbands were planning to rob her. I'm commenting on what leering could indicate. I hope more women become aware of this and that men keep in mind that when they are staring they could be coming across as dangerous without intending to be or without realizing it.
Attention and affirmation
Thanks Bethany. It is unfortunate that we live in a culture where we need to be constantly aware of possible ulterior motives. This is by no means universal.
We need to be aware of just how fine a line there is here. Socially we acknowledge each other's presence when our paths cross, this is part of cultural affirmation, and a rejection of urban anomie. It provides a form of cohesion and as Eric Berne says in Games People Play, seems to be a necessary form of 'back scratching' in which we constantly re-evaluate ourselves and our position in society. Yet fear leads us to also evaluate, and in particular, search for Male Gaze. If we feel uncomfortable when we notice other's looking at us, it may reflect our cultural conditioning or it may be that the gaze has crossed the point of affirmation to become one of power assymetry.
While personal safety is important in the short term, some rewriting of the scripts that control the way that we look at each other is necessary if we we wish to keep this as a positive rather than negative experience.
and again...
The issue at hand had nothing to do with some exposure of flesh that might embarrass or offend. However, there is a blatantly sexual overtone to this story.
The woman was forced to leave under threat of arrest because of the offensive nature of the T-shirt. Emblazoned across the front of the shirt was the web address: lesbians.com
On how many levels is this offensive? I just don't get it. Elizabeth says in an earlier post, "we need to push back." We do and we need to begin pushing hard. I am precluded from pushing openly by an encumbrance that makes any pushing I do an excuse to be swept up. For those unencumbered, pushing needs to begin now and loudly. Let's all buy a T-shirt and have a printer emblazon it with the words, "Grow Up!"
LA Daily News on Lapriss Gilbert
Lapriss Gilbert, an African American lesbian, was told her "lesbians.com" t-shirt was offensive and she would be arrested if she did not leave the federal building. The guard who forced her to leave works for a company called Paragon. A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (not sure why they were the ones speaking up, here) said that they opposed the actions of the private security guard and have notified Paragon of their position.
Gilbert's mom is Tanya Gilbert, who according to the article is also a longtime activist for gay rights. I think Paragon may be in for a lot of trouble. I hope so!
If anybody can find an email address for the right Paragon security company I'll happily encourage our readers to add their voices to the government's in "notifying " them that their guard's action was outrageously unacceptable.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Here's a link to the parent company of Paragon Security
Here is the link to the parent company of Paragon Security. Write them and tell them about their bad child. I'm sure they will appreciate the information given that they are in business to make sure we are all safe.
http://www.trissecurity.com/?p=paragon
CelticWarrior (Kelly)
Re-writing scripts
Michael,
Thank you so much for your response!
"While personal safety is important in the short term, some rewriting of the scripts that control the way that we look at each other is necessary if we we wish to keep this as a positive rather than negative experience."
I agree wholeheartedly. We are all a part of re-writing these scripts directing how we look at each other. How do we do it? For my part, I would include treating people with dignity and respect in all walks of life as a foundation. Part of this means honoring boundaries. But, since many humans do not operate from this paradigm, I feel it is necessary to confront certain types of behavior so the people who are engaging in it are made aware that someone finds it unacceptable. If we don't speak up, then they learn nothing and the same cycles and scripts are perpetuated.
We live in a culture where staring at body parts, and the gratification gained from that, is more important than the feelings and spirit of the person who is actually the owner of those body parts. This is characteristic of a narcissistic culture, lacking empathy for others. There is something very wrong with that to me. I feel that honoring a person should come first. I also feel that it is possible to admire the beauty and sexuality of a person without treating them, and the parts of their bodies, like objects. So in re-writing the scripts, I would like to see a re-huminization of people to replace the prevalent de-humanization.
I was not pleased to hear about Ms. Gilbert and her experience at the mall. Again, like I was saying, we have to speak up against this nonsense, especially collectively. Women's freedom of expression is being encroached upon in public life. Sounds to me like she has a clear cut case of gender discrimination. I will be happy to send the security company a letter.
Post new comment