SUMMER heralds the coming of many things to the University. Among them are warm weather, later sunsets, tube tops, miniskirts and halters. The literal second the temperature broke 70 degrees, girls on Grounds broke out their skimpy clothing. For many female students, minimal clothing is the attire of choice for bars, fraternities or even class. However, the majority of the female population chooses to dress more conservatively. And of this group, many disapprove of the tiny camisoles and high heels that litter everywhere from the Lawn to the Corner. It's inappropriate, disrespectful and slutty, they say. But dressing in this manner should be considered neither degrading nor condemnable.
Wearing less clothing serves several functional purposes. It makes the Virginia heat more bearable and it allows for tanning in between classes. But appearance doubtlessly is the driving force in this decision. Choosing to bare your legs, stomach, back or cleavage implies that you want them to be looked at. And that means you are going to Hell. After all, the evangelist sitting in the amphitheater this week said so.
That is one extreme of the conservative spectrum, but even the moderate end decries women for putting their bodies on display. We become in danger of being - gasp - sex symbols. Being viewed in this manner does not need to be negative.
Boys like skimpy clothing. Big surprise. University boys are probably very happy that University girls dress the way they do. This is no reason for girls to put more on. Looking attractive or even arousing to the opposite sex does not need to be considered degrading. It is not wrong to enjoy being attractive. Self-esteem should not be based on confirmed appeal to the opposite sex, but neither should self-confidence preclude sexual attractiveness. The academic issue remains that boys can't concentrate properly because they're in a state of perpetual heat. Well, that won't negatively affect the women who cause it. And, frankly, I hear very few guys complaining. There is no reasonable plaintiff in this case.
|
One hundred years ago, women couldn't show their ankles and they couldn't vote. Fifty years ago, the miniskirt wasn't even socially conceivable and women couldn't attend all universities. These are not coincidences.
Making women cover up their bodies is a vehicle for sexism. It implies shame in the female form and it perpetuates the myth that stilettos and backless shirts are for prostitutes.
Wearing skimpy clothing should not indicate that a girl is a slut. Nothing absolute can be inferred from the way someone dresses. Sometimes promiscuity is inherent in a bare wardrobe choice, but just as often you will find prudes strutting their stuff in miniskirts. Associating sexuality with clothing perpetuates an already unfair stereotype. It is this attitude that makes people say scantily clad women deserve to be sexually harassed.
Women should love their bodies. If we completely own our bodies and sexuality, then they never can be used against us.
Besides, it isn't easy to get a nice body. Hours on the elliptical machine and a low-calorie diet are not fun. There are girls at this school who have put as much time into shaping their abs as their GPAs. Maybe their priorities could be disputed, but the dedication of time and effort is not uncontestable. A toned body is something to be proud of. Not everyone has a pretty face. A nice body is an attractive feature - girls should be allowed to use it to their advantage. Those who have it have every right to flaunt it.
Condemning any women for wearing revealing clothes fosters low self-esteem among all women and perpetuates the existence of eating disorders. Wearing tight or minimal clothing demonstrates healthy confidence. Feminists need worry much more about the girl who is ashamed to bear her stomach than the one with the visible belly button piercing.
Female students here who object to their peers' fashion decisions need to ask themselves why it bothers them. Opponents usually can't articulate this. Logical reasoning does not drive these protests so much as gut reactions do. Society has trained us to see a scantily clad woman and deem it inappropriate. We look at exposed shoulders and automatically associate epithets like "ho" or "slut." It's ignorant, unjust and detrimental to the upward mobility of women. After all, internationally, the most anti-feminist cultures are those that refuse to let women expose their faces, arms or legs.
Stop censuring female students for choosing to sport the "UVA" butt shorts in extra small or wearing strapless sundresses at the dining hall. Self-confidence is always a good thing - especially when it can help empower an entire gender.
And besides, we've got indecisive prospective students visiting the University this week, and I hear the "official" sights on the tour aren't too convincing for graduating high school senior boys.
(Kimberly Liu's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
