,
Inspection could rediscover, that may show how a bird may be inhibited or damaged by it except in the most accidental manner. It's only when you step back, stop studying the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the entire cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you'll see it in a minute. It's going to require no great subtlety of mental powers. It's totally clear the bird is encircled by a network of systematically related obstacles, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relationships to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon." 110 80. Topfree inequality (requiring girls, but not men, to wear tops) is demeaning and discriminatory toward women, and reinforces patterns of male domination over girls.111 In our culture, breasts could be subjected to sell drinks to men in pubs, but girls might not be topfree on a Shore for their very own comfort and happiness. Reena Glazer writes: "The criminalization of women baring their breasts, therefore, suggests that society views women's bodies as wrong and something to conceal. There is something Possibly criminal about every girl simply by virtue of being female." 112 Herald Price Fahringer writes, "men have the right to cover or show their torsos as they see fit-- http://wiki.chroniquesgalactica.org/index.php?title=When-Youre-Not-One-how-to-Date-a-Nudist-z do not. Men have the right to take pleasure in the sun, water, and wind without a top; women do not. Few men would be willing to give up this right. Then why shouldn't girls love the same advantage? . . . Requiring women to cover their breasts in public is a very visible expression of inequality between women and men that promotes an attitude that demeans women and damages their awareness of equality. . . . For centuries, men have held the capacity to create these misconceptions. The male perspective on the exposure of http://vinyl-sea.com/mw/index.php?title=How-to-Practice-Nudity-in-Your-Family-r is crucially affected by the demand of guys to define women. . . . This reaction stems from a manly ideology that's . . . Ill-fated generations of girls to a secondary status." 113 Raymond Grueneich writes: "So what is actually at stake is whether girls will probably be free to bare their own breasts in suitable public places for their own personal goals on these affairs in which they feel free to do so, or whether they'll simply be permitted to bare their breasts in public on an occasion that may be manipulated commercially and that strengthens the idea the only role of the female breast is for the satisfaction of man fantasy. It is as though it's a crime for a woman to be undressed in public, unless she was undressed in the service of a corporation or a commercial entrepreneur." 114 81. Laws ban exposure of female breasts do so in part due to the reaction such exposure would Allegedly cause in men. Such laws are written entirely from the male point of view, and blow off the viewpoint of women, who might want to go topfree for their particular relaxation. 82. By refusing to accept the demand to "protect" themselves from men by covering their bodies, women increase power, and change the load of responsible behaviour to men, where it rightfully belongs. Reena Glazer notes that "male power is perpetuated by regarding girls as things that men act and respond to rather than as celebrities themselves. . . . their entire value comes from the reaction they are able to cause from men. In order to keep the patriarchal system, men must determine when and where this arousal is permitted to occur. This way, the (heterosexual) male myth of a lady 's breasts has been codified into law. Because women are the sexual objects and property of men, it follows that what might arouse http://ajuda.eficaciaconsultoria.com.br/index.php?title=not-amused-by-the-missionary-zeal-that-prompts-us-to-press-our-notions-of-decency-upon-them-while-being-l can only be exhibited when men want to be aroused." This emphasis on women as temptresses "shifts the load of responsibility from men to women; because girls induce uncontrollable urges in males, society justifies male behavior and blames the victim for whatever happens. . . . To sanction the theory that men have uncontrollable impulses indicates that violence against Girls is http://wiki.funkspiel-zwickau.com/index.php?title=The-dominant-idea-that-clothes-is-required-for-reasons-of-modesty-is-a-cultural-premise-Its-an-g . Patriarchal laws strip girls of the right to control their very own bodies, but there have always been "exceptions" to obscenity laws which allow the use of women's bodies in consumer seduction. Hence female nudity is considered inappropriate on the beach, but is ubiquitous in advertising and pornography. 84. By imposing arbitrary garments requirements for women (requiring them to cover their tops), the Authorities acts in loco parentis, in the part of a parent. This really is demeaning to women. Like children, they're not Surrendered the ability or right to determine how exactly to dress, much as they once weren't allowed to vote, own property, or exercise other rights.116 85. The repression of healthy female nudity fuels pornography. Herbert Muschamp notes: "To object to the nude figure in a general interest magazine while letting it to continue in men's skin magazines is one way of keeping girls in their own area." 117