Letter: Anti-equality views on toplessness based only on debatable social mores

Editor,

Female toplessness, an Aug. 25 Daily Lobo letter says, will lead to more objectification. This thesis is fatally flawed: It ignores the social construction of gender and the implications of that. It is the tautological argument that women’s bodies need to be covered in order to garner respect (social norms say women’s bodies should be covered to be respected; women should cover their bodies for greater respect because thus sayeth social norms).

It is time – no, it is far past time – to deconstruct and interrogate the arbitrary social constructions that permit men to do something while women are not given the same privilege.

The first flaw in the argument made in that letter is the glaring dichotomy set up between “woman” and “man.” The argument goes like this: men and women are different, because of – you know – anatomy and biochemistry and genes and things. Thus, men are different from women.

Yet basing laws and regulations – and social standards – on these differences is a wholly arbitrary action. You cannot easily tell me what a “woman” is or what a “man” is. If you point to anatomical differences – a certain group of the population has penises and another group has vaginas, birth canals, and mammary glands – I will point to an individual with both mammary glands and a penis (is that a man, or a woman? The distinction is arbitrary).

If you point to biochemical and genetic differences, I will point to individuals with an XXY genotype (Klinefelter syndrome). On a gross genetic level, a “man” is more similar to a “woman” than to an individual with the XXY genotype, even though that individual has a penis and no mammary glands.

Appealing to the “innate” biological differences between “man” and “woman” is arbitrary – and it does nothing to explain why individuals with XX genotypes should be (arbitrarily) singled out for certain legal dictates about the anatomical locations where fabric or covering is needed. It is genetic discrimination of a socially vcontrived nature. Your identity as a “woman” or as a “man” is a social construction – all the more so because such identities become increasingly blurred as Donna Haraway’s cyborgs manifest as a cultural, social and technological reality.

Further, the belief that women will become even more objectified if they were to go bare-chested is not founded on any evidence – only off of a “hunch.” But men are allowed to be bare-chested, and society does not sexualize them nearly as much as women. If anything, the evidence points to the conclusion that, actually, if social norms permitted bare-chested women, objectification and hypersexualization of the female body would dissipate.

The idea that more female toplessness could incite more sexual assault – and therefore they should not go bare-chested – points to a very sickening aspect of society: it blames women for violence perpetrated against them. Instead of teaching your daughters to “cover up,” you should teach your sons not to rape.

Sincerely,

Livingstone Marmon

UNM alumni