Girls 4B

I thought it was important to keep this anecdote separate. If you have read the previous blog I am quite sure that you have your own ideas about what constitutes too much or too little clothing with regard to women. One reason is that you have grown up in a society that considers full nakedness to be unacceptable in most circumstances. I hope you understand that this is a cultural matter, that it changes over time, and that your attitude is affected by what you are familiar with. If you don't understand that, I would like to illustrate it with my own experience.

When I was a child, growing up in England, children playing on the beach were usually naked. Nobody cared. It was normal. Most importantly the children were unaware that there was even a decision to be made here. The decision in that place, at that time was based on the weather. Solely.

When I had children it was still perfectly normal to let small children run naked on the beach. This was in the 1980s. I have plenty of photos of them. When I had them developed, I was not arrested. These days I might be. But of course, photography is much more private now, with digital cameras.

We came to Canada in 1993 and the first time I took my children to the beach I experienced culture shock. Sian, who was 3, was naked. A number of other children her age were too. Without exception their parents had European accents.

Many small girls were in bikinis. Their parents were not immigrants, or not recent ones, generally.

The children all played happily, innocently.

The parents stared at one another.

The Canadian parents were horrified at these naked children.

The European parents were horrified at the tiny girls in bikinis.

AND FOR THE SAME REASON.

If you understand that, you'll understand why we have a problem with this topic.

Girls 4

In all of the debates about women's rights, about assaults on women, about who is responsible, and what we can do about it, I don't think there is a hotter potato than the question of covering.

It's a curious phenomenon, because at the root of it all is a bizarre confession from men, that they are animals with no control over themselves. They don't phrase it like that. Instead, they blame women for wearing provocative clothing.

In many cultures/religions, women are required to cover certain parts of their bodies. This may be more or less. It may involve hiding their true shape, or their legs, or their hair, or even their entire faces. A current trend in the west is to pretend we don't have nipples. The question is, does this protect women from the unwanted advances of men?

It's hard to get real data, because the same societies that insist on this sort of thing, are not those who release official figures on assaults. But we have an idea, based on our own society in Victorian times. Maids were regularly "ruined" by their employers, despite only their hands and faces being visible.

Are women protected by extremes such as the hijab? Many writers from the inside of these societies say no. This is one example, you can Google plenty more:

http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/the-myth-of-how-the-hijab-protects-women-against-sexual-assault

From the reading I have done over the decades, I have concluded that assaults on women are actually greater in societies with such dress codes. I can't prove it, I doubt anyone can, but I believe it to be so.

So, we must ask ourselves, at which point is the other extreme? At which point does clothing becomes so skimpy that it justifies assault? I said justifies. Not explains, or makes more likely, but justifies. What do you say?

My guess is that you'll say it is never justified. And yet in our society we do, openly or secretly, frequently say "Well, look what she was wearing....." We will all say that even a naked woman has the right to be left alone, but we still see certain women as underdressed. We each have our own line in the sand as to what is modest, or conservative, or decent, and as to what is provocative.

In discussions on this topic, men frequently say that they find clothing with a little mystery to be the most exciting. Indeed in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking......and a shapely ankle could drive a man wild. So, covering up may not be any solution at all, it could have the opposite effect.

At the very least, to be dull and biological, the human birth rate ballooned after we started to wear clothes. Now, I assume the reason for the boom in our numbers was more to do with other factors - civilization not only led to clothing, it also led to higher survival rates, but the point is that covering ourselves up didn't do any harm. The natural desires of men were not damaged in any way by clothing.

If we did properly conducted research, not guesses, into male desires and behaviours, in various societies, we might find out once and for all what I strongly suspect, which is that it makes absolutely no difference what women wear. From fig leaves to burqas, men's behaviour is more affected by their own upbringing, beliefs, personality, and mental health, than by anything a woman wears. Passing the buck, putting the responsibility on women, is that good old "blame the victim" mentality.

Does this mean it's "sensible" for women to dress modestly? This is the argument usually put forward. Be reasonable, have some common sense.

The problem here is that there are so many possible definitions of what reasonable is. What seems likes a common sense level of covering to one person, may seem quite absurd to another. Again, upbringing and personality. Some women will tell you they prefer to dress modestly, they feel naked and vulnerable in strappy tops for example. An enormous amount of the comfort levels we each have are to do with what we are used to.

Even within the covered societies there are "levels". You may or may not be familiar with these terms:

I have been told by Muslim women that not only does a woman used to wearing the hijab feel naked without it, but a woman used to a burqa feels naked with just hijab. These feelings are perfectly real, and some women can get over them completely, some partially, and some not at all. To a Muslimah who has worn hijab her whole life, it seems perfectly reasonable, it is her level of common sense.

Personally, I would have no difficulty being naked in public. There is a classic dream where one finds oneself in this situation, and it causes great anguish or shame. This dream is interpreted in many ways. When I have this dream, I'm doing it on purpose, and quite comfortable with it, so I'm not quite sure how that would be interpreted. I assure you it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a desire to allure men. I may well use it someday to provoke other strong feelings, to shock, to protest, because it seems to have quite a controversial effect there:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/04/20134511838270701.html

As you can see, views on this sort of thing vary widely, and for many reasons. I don't believe consensus is actually possible, because of individual attitudes.

And here's my reasoning. I do not view my naked body as anything sexual. To ascribe sexual motives to nudity is to project your own views. Naked is just what we are, and we cover it up. On this cold April morning, there's good reason too, since we don't have fur. I wonder, if we DID have fur, would any of this happen? Would we wear clothes? Would we care about nudity? Does the covering of hair suggest that we would, or does it mean something else?

It's interesting that we refer to hairless creatures as "naked" suggesting that we view skin as the forbidden thing, at some levels. It's also interesting that we fooled ourselves for many years that sheer stockings, which were dyed to look exactly the same colour as skin, were considered a garment, a covering, and that women wearing no stockings were considered underdressed.

More tomorrow.

Facebook

Is it me or is it them? That's the question I often ask myself.

Before anyone says "So stop reading it", I am well aware of that solution, but it's no solution at all. I use Facebook etc, to stay in touch with people in a way that wouldn't happen otherwise. Let's not pretend I'd keep up a running communication by any other means, because I wouldn't and neither would they.

Plus, if you live in a city and work in a busy office, maybe you get your fill of human interraction "live", as it were. I live in the middle of nowhere and work from home, with only Tom and my sheep for company most of the time. Now, conversations with Tom can be deep and fascinating, I'll grant you that. But they can also be sporadic, if he's got his head into something, and they can often be TOO deep. As in weird. No, it doesn't count as social interaction. May blessings pour upon the internet for keeping me in touch with the outside world.

But just like the outside world, just like any social setting, any office, any situation, it has its pros and cons. I liken it to the village well. It really is comparable, more so perhaps than any other analogy. It is where you go regularly. It is where your people also go, family, friends, and...the rest. Some you know better than others. Some you like better than others.

If you avoid the well, and become a hermit in the caves above the village, you miss out on all of it. So, you take the rough with the smooth, and you go get your water. You overhear all sorts of conversations. Some are directed right at you. Some of it is really useful information. Some is just general stuff. Some is repetition. Some is whining. Some is lies. Some is opinions you share, some you vehemently oppose.

And you have choices. You can listen, and say nothing. You can walk away. You can join in. You can argue. There are social conventions about your behaviour, so that is remains a pleasant experience for everyone. Some people break them.

Since we have no village wells, but we do have the social side of the internet, we have developed certain unwritten rules of etiquette just as we have in the real world. But that's not right is it? The social aspect of the internet is part of the real world, and ever more so. We can't pretend it's remote and different, because it isn't. Most of our conversation online refers to what happens offline. It's just a communication medium.
So, the etiquette really isn't going to be that different. Shared ideas about shouting, arguing, swearing, and so on, apply just the same.

What's my point?

Oh nothing profound. That lot was all just a disclaimer really, because I often find myself bitching and whining about what I read. As we all know the correct, logical, sensible thing to do is just move on. I should be able to do that by now. Apparently I can't.

What Do YOU Think Melanie?

What do I think? Who am I, some great opinion-giver? Just because I'm English, I should make a statement on the passing of an ex-PM?

OK, if I must. I think she's dead. Yep. That's what I think. I think she was old, and she died. That's what old people do.

Look, I got into trouble last year when I did, openly and willingly proffer a view about being sad when total strangers - who are old - die. Do I look daft? Think I'm risking that shitstorm again?

If I have any opinion at all, it is that those who are cheering a death, any death, might as well shut up with any future view they have on ethics, because I won't be listening.

Conflict of Interest

I've been asked why I post stuff from my eBay store on Facebook or mention it here, am I trying to use my social circles to sell things?

Well, yes and no.

If I relied on social circles to make money, I'd go broke. You cannot make a living selling stuff to your friends. And I have no desire to annoy my friends by trying to sell them things. And it IS annoying. People do fall out over stuff like this. Mixing business with social is dodgy.

However, sometimes my friends WANT to buy my stuff, WANT to see new stuff, and even if they aren't buying, they are interested, curious. So for those who WANT to see it, I am providing links.

The point of it all though is that if you LOOK at those links, it increases the placement of those items in the mysterious eBay algorithm. So by looking at the page, and not spending any money at all, you are giving me a leg-up in marketing. If you see something you like, and share it it or pin it, even better. I'd do the same for you.

This is a very fuzzy part of business ethics. The whole "networking" thing is a bit of a grey area in that respect. Ulterior motives and all that. So I'm cautious, because I don't want turn into one of "those" people - you know the ones. I had a Tupperware manager like that once. We went to a Tupperware convention, on a chartered bus. The bloody woman talked the bus driver into hosting a party! People must have been terrified of her - quick, hide, or she'll talk us into a Tupperware party. This if course was why she was a manager. Highly successful, but.......no I never want to be like that.

So there's a balance, oh yes, there's that word again! Don't I just love it.

Balance isn't an automatic thing you pluck out of thin air. It has to be arrived at, largely by awareness of the risk of extremes. In other words, it begins with conflict. Conflicts often arise, that's just how life is, in fact if you never notice any, you're not paying attention. Conflict is an inevitable part of awareness. It is how you deal with it that counts.

The same word, conflict, is one we also use when referring to a disagreement with another person, but here the disagreement is going on inside our own conscience. Should I do this or that? I want to do both. As we process it we arrive at balance. I often hear friends talk about balancing career and family, or similar. It is because two important ascepts of their lives conflict, usually with time, but it could be a conflict of other resources, money, perhaps even strength.

When we say we are conflicted about something, we are not dithering. Dithering is negative, like worry. Trying to resolve a conflict is positive, like planning. So there is no shame in admitting to being conflicted. It's a starting point.

If you are never conflicted, then either you are INCREDIBLY lucky, or you are blundering through life, or you are not telling the truth. The latter two are, in my opinion, very unwise, and the first isn't really serving you well anyway.

Me, Giving Technical Advice? BWAHAHAHA!!!

OK, a TOTAL deviation from what usually goes on here, but I have been asked "How do we get images off Facebook?" I said "Same as you get images from anywhere". But this, like the "link doesn't work" comments I sometimes see, suggest that some of you need a wee bit of technical advice.

I am the last person to offer technical advice. I have three levels of technical help available.

For basic stuff like "Help, my keyboard isn't working, did somebody unplug something? Which plug is it?" I call on any of the boys here at home.

For more complex stuff like "How do I make the printer leave a smaller margin round my shipping labels?", I contact #2 son.

For really complex stuff, like when smoke comes out the hard drive, I contact the Holy Oracle, aka #1 son, because if he can't fix it, it cannot be fixed. Because I really never needed to learn technical stuff, having sons to do it for me, I don't know much.

But apparently I know more than some.

Any image on any site on the internet can be TAKEN. There are two ways.

The correct way, is to right click on it, and select "Save image as". You can then download the image to your  computer. If you don't select otherwise it will go to your "Downloads" folder, where you can retrieve it later.

However, sometimes due to the coding, this won't work. Big deal. On your keyboard you have a key that says "Print Screen". This captures whatever you see on your screen, and immediately you press it, your computer has a captured image of the screen. So all you have to do is open "Paint" and click on "Paste" and there it is. You know how to cut & paste words, I'm sure (if you are really that much of a n00b that you don't understand cut & paste, then you need even more help, e-mail me....if you can).

OK, so now "Paint" has it. Click on "select" and draw a box round the part you want. Hit "Crop".

Now click on "Save as" and put the image where you want it...Desktop will do, or you can put it in your "Pictures" folder.

You'll need to name it at the bottom of the window, where it says File Name. Give it a name you'll remember, such as cutecat and immediately under that you'll see Save As Type, choose JPEG. Don't ask why, just do it.

Now you can use it the same as any other image.

If any part of this makes no sense, ask me to elaborate. I am INFINITELY patient with the technically impaired, because I'm one of you.

Action

I'm taking a break from my series on feminism, I'm up to my ears in other stuff, and I'll come back to it when I can dedicate more time, because it's important (and I have a lot more to say). Today I want to briefly address a dichotomy I see in popular attitudes.

Attitude #1 goes like this:

Wealth distribution is grossly unfair. Poor people are getting screwed, they always have done, but in this modern world we actually have the ability to stop that happening. Instead the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. This is an injustice that needs to be addressed and we should not ignore it or allow to continue.

Attitude #2 goes like this:

If we think positive, things will improve. We make our own luck by our attitudes, and to succeed all we need to do is have successful thoughts. After all, money isn't everything, and there are many other ways to measure success. But wealth comes to those with the drive, passion, and faith. Go-getters get the gold.

At first sight, these attitudes seem mutually exclusive. #1 blames society, while #2 blames the individual (although it wouldn't admit that, it never talks of blame openly). #1 thinks #2 is out of touch with reality, or worse. Meanwhile #2 thinks #1 is being a negative Nelly.

They argue. There is often a political aspect to it, which is probably obvious, because if you take these attitudes a bit further they do lead to classic left and right stances.

Well, you know me. I don't do extremes.

The fact is, if you get your head out of your arse and leave your agenda over there, you can see that there is truth in both attitudes. It's stupid to have them as opposing sides. We will collectively get nowhere, actually, if we fight over this.

I have a few wise friends who have managed to combine these attitudes. While keenly aware of social injustices they take a pro-active stance, and are optimistic it can be changed. Instead of just complaining about it, they do something about it. I've heard this snappy little idea:

Don't stress it, address it.

I like that.

You can use that in all sorts of situations, a little mantra.

I do not believe that #1 is always negative. It can be realistic with a bit of despair thrown in, but it can also be an attitude one can build on. To start to make change.

I do not believe that #2 is always positive. It can be idealistic, with a bit of chutzpah thrown in, but it can also be an attitude one can build on. To start to make change.

Both agree there is another way.

Perhaps if people with different attitudes start by finding common ground, cut out the stubbornness, and took a peek at the other view, we might make that change a little faster. Apparently we all want it.