Friday, July 24, 1992 - North Shore News - 7 Thanks for the mammaries Are topless crusaders reducing the issue of sexual equality to trivial pursuits? TODAY’S subject is the female breast. By Paul Hughes Contributing Writer Now that I have the undivided attention of at least half the popu- lation, I should add that it is also about the recently planned na- tiona] demonstration by women seeking the right to bare the above breasts in public — a prepesat I haven’t got this excited about since the ’60s, when women ev- erywhere stcod up and said, “Hey! Why do I have to wear these Wonderbra thingies any- way?”’ That, if you’li remember, started a bonfire that will zo down in history. There are, i’m sorry tc say, many men who fack a certain degree of sympathy for all that our feminist sisters stand for. If I may say so, these gormless clods lack my high level of sensi- tivity and tolerance. They don’t have the ability to see that women are every bit as capable as men, and that they deserve the same freedoms men enjoy. Also they don’t have a knife- wielding, Girl-Guide-trained wife peering over their shoulder, wat- ching every word they type. However, when it comes to the right of women to bare their chests in pubic, I don’t know of many males possessing normally aligned hormones who don’t want to break into a rousing chorus of, We Shall Overcome. Making the baring of breasts a feminist cause celebre would result in unprecedented male support, not to mention all manner of sol- idarity. The problem, I suspect, is that women have these nasty suspicious winds. They would question the purity of our motives, you see. Well, perhaps they have a point. JF WOMEN HAD ALWAYS GONE TOPLESS ... wow! Look AT THAT, BoB! SHe's WEARING A SPLIT: COLLAR , LONG SLEEVE. COTTON PULLOVER. To women, breasts are just two more whatnots that get in the way when they’re trying to squeeze in- to a phone booth. But to men, they are the source of endless fascination, the mere glimpse of which can transform the sanest male into a tongue-tied, slobbering lunatic. I defy any heterosexual male, while talking with, say, a bikini- clad lifeguard with admirable flotation devices, to keep his eyes on the topic of conversation. It can’t be done; and a discus- 000000... A BLACK AND FUcHstaA COMBO. sion cn the celative merits of the Australian crawl versus the breast stroke would quickly degenerate into meaningless babble. When you think about it, it’s rather silly really, What makes breasts so special anyway? Why don’t men fall over themselves trying to take a peak at a pair of particularly shapely index fingers, for instance? The reason, I've decided, is the mystery of it aj). Index fingers don’t normally wear bras, shirts, or other coverings, and thus are HE. SAYS HE. suer Buys THEM For THe. CARTOONS ! always in view, I suggest that if women sud- denly decided to cover their index fingers with flimsy lace undergarments, we’d soon enough find ourselves shaking their hands a lot. Well, perhaps not. Still, | am aware of a remote tribe in, I think, darkest Zim- babwe, where the ladies insert large turkey platters in their ear- lobes to attract mates. Or at least 1 would be if | weren’t fairly sure the Knowledge Network was mak- Good luck trying to ‘desexualize’ LET ME get this straight. If I want to take my rightful place in society, alongside any man, I should take off my top and walk down Georgia Street. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous concepts Pve heard in a long time. It would be laughable, except that the women who attended the topless marches on Parliament Hill and in other Canadian locales are going a long way to trivialize the genuine and needed efforts that have been put into legitimate women’s rights issues over the years. Personally, I define feminism as a philosophy that works to pro- vide an atmosphere in which both men and women are given the respect and the practical support required to allow them a chance to achieve their ambitions — whether those ambitions are Mom becoming an astronaut, staying at home, or working full-time because Dad wants to stay home with the kids. Given this defini- tion, I am a staunch feminist. That Gwen Jacob, the 20- year-old woman who was arrested for going bare-chested in Guelph last summer, managed to turn her arrest into an equality issue is perhaps a sign that individual women with theiy own axe to grind are using the politically cor- rect feminist buzzwords to achieve By Peggy Trendell-Whittaker Contributing Writer an audience with politicians and the media. Although the topless crusade is being hailed as a ‘women’s rights”’ issue, it certainly doesn't reflect my views, or those of any of the women I’ve discussed the issue with. Even more disturbing than these individuals’ campaign is the issue’s support by the parliamen- tary liaison for the National Ac- tion Committee for the Status of Women, who referred to the ‘“‘hy- pocrisy of the law’’ that allows men, not women, to appear bare-chested in public. The organizer of the topless ral- ly on Parliament Hill, Anne MacDonald, says ‘‘there should be an equal law for both sexes.’’ Well, guess what, gang. There is an equal law. Both sexes are re- quired to cover up areas of the body that are considered sexual. Women's breasts are considered sexual. Men’s aren’t. A change in Jaw isn't going to change our perceptions, or the 44 Reducing the issue to a whiny gender battle does a disservice to the legitimate concerns that surround this topic... 99 fact that men’s and women’s physical bodies are never, ever, thank goodness, going to be “‘equal.’’ If the goal of the topless crusaders is to desexualize breasts to the point that they would have as few sexual connotations as men’s chests, and therefore be equally appropriate for public display, they are going to have a Ict of work ahead of them. Women’s breasts have been considered sexual for centuries, and our massive advertising in- dustry has done nothing to change our views on this matter. If women were allowed to bare their breasts at whim, I believe men could justifiably demand the right to doff their pants at will ~ let’s be fair, after all. Reducing the issue to a whiny gender battle does a disservice to the legitimate concerns that sur- round this topic, and which can- not be adequately addressed by writing them off as yet another example of Man’s Horrendous Unfairness to Woman. For instance, I get worried when seciety gives out moral messages that nudity is ‘‘bad,”’ not simply inappropriate at a par- ticular time or place. This happened when one of the ships at Expo had to cover up the breasts of the wooden female figurine gracing its prow. It happens when non-exploitive art shows are cancelled due to nudity, or when citizens try to shut down a nude beach that is discreetly isolated from people who might object. There is nothing evil about the human body, but children will have problems developing a 64 Making the baring of breasts a feminist cause celebre would result in unprecedented male support... 99 ing the whole thing up. Anyway, the point is that what is attractive and titillating in one society can seem rather foolish in another. Say, for argument’s sake, the Klingons happened to land a space ship on the Guelph streets the day Gwen Jacobs was arrested for tak- ing her shirt off during a heat wave. Can you imagine the report they'd beam back to their home planet? “Earthlings are crazier than a roomful of four-legged Tripodes. Male of species will give female of species several bits of paper to expose two globules of flesh on her chest if she is in dark room dancing to bad music. “If same female exposes above globules on street for no pieces of paper, they fling her in place call- ed prison. Strange bunch. Recommend we blast planet with photon torpedoes.’’ Well, who could blame them? Are we a strange species, or what? breasts healthy self-iniage or sexual awareness if they are given the message that it is. Also of concern is our society’s obsession with the female form as an advertising tool, resulting in TV shows and commercials in which women are vatucd chiefly for their looks rather than their achievements. Gwen Jacob and her topless supporters are doing nothing to help solve these legitimate issues, and are in fact doing much to muddy the waters of an area that is already rife with confusion. if both men and women are finding it difficult to define what constitutes sexual harassment now, imagine how easy it would be when Ms. Jones is swinging her knockers over the desk. When women believe they can exercise any choice they want to, regardless of how inappropriate, and trumpet it under the ‘‘women’s rights’? banner, it’s no wonder we are reading Time arti- cles about the current backlash against feminism. Some women would be advised to act more reasonably and responsibly, or we'll all be in danger of losing the recognition that legitimate women’s rights ac- tivists have earned through in- telligence and perseverance.