Men in the West are dressed in full; women are dressed half , quarter or less

[paarsurrey]

I didn't pick the term nor do I disagree with the fact that it is a generalising one. However what it does well is give arise to the connotation of first world European countries (and their colonies) which is what is being discussed no? Within all of these societies, as far as I am knowledgable of, there is variance among women naturally with populations this large but social media and public perception of women is another thing entirely. If you flip through any makeup or clothing advertisement it is selling the sexuality of women and placing a price tag on it.

The type of mentality in this regard is, to me, disgusting.

I think it is correct;just my opinion.

 

[Father Heathen]

I may be wrong.

I assure you, you are.

 

[paarsurrey]

quote]

Darn it! I was already horny but wanted to use that latent sexual energy for doing more productive things!

We will see who wins in the end! >.>[/QUOTE]

We are all erring human beings; I don't deny that.

 

[painted wolf]

What about her gesture of taking off her bra putting her hands on her boobs.

Spoiler: What about it?

I'm not saying such ads are appropriate (I don't think they are) but again, objectification and hyper-sexualization in ads applies to both genders.
Thankfully, the vast majority of adds do not contain such imagery.

wa:do

 

[paarsurrey]

It shows that womens saves more than men's.

You mean cloth?!

 

[Falvlun]

I just point out the women are as beautiful as ever to the men in whatever dress they are; they were no less beautiful in the Victorian times;

If they were no less beautiful, then why do you think that men cannot control themselves now that women wear less clothing?

later the culture in the West changed, maybe for the two world wars and then men remained as they were to the most extent but the women changed as I pointed out; with the result, I think, rate of families breaking up and divorces increased than in the nineteenth century in the West, in my opinion.

If it did not happen, then I am wrong.

What happened was that women got rights. They were no longer property. They were able to work and own property and earn their own way in the world without having to rely upon a man.

If their man was a cheating jerk, women were pressured to stay or unable to leave because they had no way to support themselves. Now, women are able to leave. It really has nothing to do with the fact that these women can also wear miniskirts now if they want to.

I suspect that men cheated just as much back then, if not more, than they do now. The difference is that women don't have to stand for it now if they don't want to.

Women are more respectful and not less beautiful if they are dressed in full like men; why do the women have gone in an inferiority complex in the West?

This is just my opinion; I may be wrong.

Baggy T-shirts and Jeans are OK, I think.
Quran does not mention of any burka, however .

How is confidence about your body an inferiority complex? Why do you think it is more respectful to wear baggy clothing? Respectful to whom?

Look, sure, some people are insecure about themselves and might dress provocatively in order to alleviate that insecurity, but that hardly means that all women who wear less clothing than you'd like have some sort of complex.

You also keep on stating your premise-- that women are half as dressed as men-- as if it's a foregone conclusion. I've brought this up a couple of times (see post 136 for the latest), but so far, you've ignored it. Why do you think this is the case? PW posted that photo of normal every day attire, and women are pretty much wearing the same amount of clothing as men. In some cases, men literally wear half as much clothing as females because our society allows men to remove their shirts. So we have that sometimes the genders wear the same amount of clothing, sometimes men wear less, and sometimes women wear less. Your premise doesn't seem all that reflective of actual apparel choices between the genders.

In addition, you claim that "Men have stayed the same" since Victorian times. Oh really? I don't recall men wearing shorts back then or flipflops and they certainly didn't go around bareheaded all that much.

It also is likely that, in general, men had less clothing to lose. Women had all these frills and constricting and restricting clothing requirements. So, is it not possible that men stayed the same and women simply were finally free to adopt their easy-going, functional style? We had some catching up to do!

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems to me that debates about how some women dress keep arising out of an imagined need to 'keep them in check' — perhaps not to violate some kind of arbitrary norm that may very well differ from one person to another and from a society to another.

Times change, and with them fashion/clothing styles. You wouldn't see a person of either gender sporting low-rise jeans in Victorian times, for example, yet it is pretty common nowadays. What was viewed as sexual, "beautiful," or otherwise attractive back then isn't the same as today.

I don't think one can really infer that women in a culture as a whole suffer from an "inferiority complex" or things along those lines just from how they dress. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people who all could have different reasons as to why they dress the way they do. Judging a culture through the lens of another tends to lead to faulty assumptions and inaccurate conclusions, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, there is no scientific factor behind the change; at least nobody has pointed it out; there are many things in human life which do not fall under the realm of science; yet many people here think that science is supreme; it is just a secular tool in hands of the humans to solve material and physical problems.

 

[Bismillah]

LoL... not really. It attempts to manufacturer desires but it doesn't reflect need or want.

You must be kidding not only does it attempt to manufacture desire but it SUCEEDS. There would be zero reason why the huge

Here is a detailed study regarding this (pdf warning) and in retrospect it supports exactly what I stated that advertising reflects popular culture (i.e social and cultural norms)

"By analyzing the methods and benefits of celebrity endorsement, characters, music,
product placement and the use of art in advertising campaigns, the study was able to 165 conclude that popular culture is required to be reflected in advertising in order for a
campaign to be understood, but additionally, there are examples where advertising has
shaped aspects of popular culture, where the consumers have retained pieces of a
campaign" as in not only is it reflective of its respective culture it posses the ability to mold and shape public perception as well."

And again it states

"Based on all elements of study and research of this topic, it can be concluded that in
order for advertising to be successful and understood, it is required to reflect rather
than aim to shape popular culture."

This is concurrent throughout the study and where public consciousness is impacted and changed as a whole is shaped by other forms of popular culture as well such as movies, music, and literature. All these forms have in it exorbitant amounts of sexual pervasiveness and an ideal that seems to be aimed at average Americans.

I mean that actual people in the west do not look like what you see in advertizements.

Again things such as advertisements are a reflection of American public consciousness, ideals, and beliefs.

Even the models don't really look like that, they have been altered using makeup and mostly with computer editing software.

No one is saying that they look like that what I am saying is that there is a emphasis on that people should look like that. I mean the makeup industry, one created to focus on women and to beautify them to the impossible standards of digital enhancement, is a colossal example.

This is what actual Americans look like.

That makes no sense it's an anecdotal example and isn't accountable for all Americans the word "actual" is meaningless. But just ooking at the picture it looks like somewhere in the MidWest or East Coast and a cold climate as almost everyone is wearing layers. So obviously climate is a factor. I could post a picture of my campus here in Arizona and I guarantee you that there would be a huge number of girls wearing nothing but underwear that is considered acceptable to wear in public.

Yeah well most people in "the west" would agree with you. But that is the imagery that the industry continues to put out despite our protests.

Again that is contrary to what I have read these ads, movies, songs, and books condensing humans down to sexuality exist primarily because there is a market for it.

And men. Objectification isn't a one way street. But claiming that women in the west run around nearly naked all the time because you saw it in a magazine ad is laughable at best.

I never said that it is a one way street but rather that when it comes down to it women are placed on a greater pedestal of sexuality. Things such as bikinis, makeup, pornography, even workplace attire (the fact that women wear skirts whereas there is no equivalent for a man leads me to question why it works one way but not the other).

Some interesting quotes

Heflick and Goldenberg (2009) were the first to demonstrate that perceivers attributed and less competence to a female celebrity and view her as similar to an object when focusing on her appearance as compared to her personality

It has been shown that the media primarily focus on body parts rather than the face when depicting women (i.e., face-ism bias), whereas this bias is usually absent or markedly reduced when men are portrayed in advertisement (e.g., Archer et al., 1983). Recent studies suggest that sexual objectification could cause negative social perception. For example, Loughnan and his colleagues (2011) have shown that people depersonalize men and women when they are portrayed as a body wearing a swimsuit or underwear (i.e., sexually objectified targets) compared to when their face is highlighted (see also Gurung & Chrouser, 2007).

Vaes and his colleagues have demonstrated that sexual objectification leads to animalize female targets (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2010). When completing a reaction time task requiring the categorization of words (i.e., animal vs. human words) and pictures (i.e., sexualized bodies vs. faces), people matched less quickly pictures to uniquely human characteristics, but only when the targets were objectified and female. These data suggest that people perceive women as closer to animals when their sexualized body is highlighted rather than their face. These authors have also shown that both men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women, but for different reasons. Females dehumanize objectified women because they consider them as a disliked subcategory whereas men do so when a sex-goal is activated (Vaes et al., 2010).

Furthermore, Cikara, Eberhardt and Fiske (2010) have shown that people are more likely to associate sexualized women (e.g., wearing a swimsuit) to first person verbs and non-sexualized (e.g., clothed) women to verbs at the third person. Given that attributing third person verbs is specific for agents (i.e., only agents can decide their actions), these results suggest that sexualization diminishes attribution of agency.

The results showed a clear schism between the images of men and women. When viewing female images, participants were better at recognizing individual parts than they were matching whole-body photographs to the originals. The opposite was true for male images: People were better at recognizing a guy as a whole than they were his individual parts.

People were also better at discerning women's individual body parts than they were at men's individual body parts, further confirming the local processing, or objectification, that was happening.

http://beta.in-mind.org/issue-14/“l...cedents-and-consequences-self-objectification
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/women-and-objectification_n_1701275.html

To claim that "the west" objectifies women more than a culture where a woman will be beaten for showing her ankle is sadly ironic.

Note let me be perfectly clear because I have already explicitly talked about this earlier in the thread. This thread is a focus of Western culture. Not MiddleEast, Indian Subcontinent, or Far Eastern culture. I am an American I live in America and I am discussing the culture I grew up in. I see zero reason to bring up things (fallaciously I might add) that are associated with the culture of the Arabian peninsula. No one made this claim, certainly not I, and to be honest the fact that it is repeated so much is borderline discrimination.

I am aware the of the disgusting and misogynistic nature of many of these cultures, often better than most, but it bears zero relevance to the topic on hand.

 

[painted wolf]

Manufacturing "desire" is not manufacturing "need" or "want"... though you could argue for "want". I may need clothing and I may want to look presentable but I do not need a particular brand... I may desire a particular brand but that does not mean that I need it.

Pop culture is not the only force in America. We are also a highly religious nation and that needs to be accounted for as well. There is still a lot of social taboo about dressing in revealing fashions (and frankly breaking taboo is part of the appeal).

A "market for it" means that some people will respond to those adds... and yes, some people clearly do. But there are just as many people who are against such advertizing. There is however a pesky thing called free speech that allows such advertising to happen, short of being outright pornography. And I have already agreed that sexual objectification is wrong.

As for my picture... you mean a crowd in Arizona like this one? Still not seeing a lot of virtually naked women but I do see a lot of women dressed essentially the same way as the men.

Perhaps your problem is spending too much time on college campuses... where young people are learning who they are and pushing the social taboos to show they are independent?

The skirt thing is just silly. A skirt is essentially a two piece dress. Dresses were the only thing women were allowed to wear for most of American history. If you want men to be able to wear dresses in public I congratulate you on your gender equality forward thinking.
There is a male equivalent... it's called a Kilt, and men are free to wear them as they like.

and you will note... I said that generalizing culture in a large area like "the west" or "the east" is near useless and only discriminatory. Americans are not the same as Austrailians or the Dutch and even within each of these countries there is a lot of variation.

So the OP which says that "Men in the West are dressed in full; women are dressed half , quarter or less" is demonstrably false. What it shows is that the poster either isn't paying attention to "the west" or is trying to purposefully caricature it in a negative light.

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's the difference; in the muslim world, women have no choice when it comes to clothing. In the "west", women can choose by their own free will whether to press modestly or provocatively. Those who object to this don't like the idea of women being independent individuals, capable of making decisions for themselves. It's a control issue. I think the western ideal is something that the rest of the world should emerge from their caves to aspire to; rights, freedom, equality. Oppressive, superstitious nonsense should be tossed in the rubbish bin.

 

[Revoltingest]

It looks like the west is getting a distorted reputation.
I blame the Swedes.....

 

[FearGod]

Here's the difference; in the muslim world, women have no choice when it comes to clothing. In the "west", women can choose by their own free will whether to press modestly or provocatively. Those who object to this don't like the idea of women being independent individuals, capable of making decisions for themselves. It's a control issue. I think the western ideal is something that the rest of the world should emerge from their caves to aspire to; rights, freedom, equality. Oppressive, superstitious nonsense should be tossed in the rubbish bin.

Muslim women wear hijap by their free will,not because they're forced to do so.
in other words they like it that way.

[youtube]JvCtDgs5QiE[/youtube]
The Super Fashionable Hijabi / Over The Top Hijab Fashion! - YouTube

 

[paarsurrey]

Here's the difference; in the muslim world, women have no choice when it comes to clothing. In the "west", women can choose by their own free will whether to press modestly or provocatively. Those who object to this don't like the idea of women being independent individuals, capable of making decisions for themselves. It's a control issue. I think the western ideal is something that the rest of the world should emerge from their caves to aspire to; rights, freedom, equality. Oppressive, superstitious nonsense should be tossed in the rubbish bin.

Has not the rate of family break-ups and divorces increased today compared with the Victorian period?
Is there some data available for this?

 

[painted wolf]

Has not the rate of family break-ups and divorces increased today compared with the Victorian period?
Is there some data available for this?

You mean now that it's not illegal for a woman to decide to leave an abusive husband... funny how that works.

wa:do

 

[beenie]

Muslim women wear hijap by their free will,not because they're forced to do so.
in other words they like it that way.

[youtube]JvCtDgs5QiE[/youtube]
The Super Fashionable Hijabi / Over The Top Hijab Fashion! - YouTube

If you believe that all Muslims women wear hijab by free will, I have a dozen acres of prime, lakefront property to sell you. Undoubtedly there are some, but surely not all.

 

[Falvlun]

Has not the rate of family break-ups and divorces increased today compared with the Victorian period?
Is there some data available for this?

It might help to actually respond to posts that address your points rather than just repeating them over and over again.

 

[Father Heathen]

Muslim women wear hijap by their free will,not because they're forced to do so.
in other words they like it that way.

[youtube]JvCtDgs5QiE[/youtube]
The Super Fashionable Hijabi / Over The Top Hijab Fashion! - YouTube

So you're saying that there's no social pressure or legal repercussions in Muslim countries if a woman decided to dress in a way that might be considered revealing or provocative?

 

[Father Heathen]

Has not the rate of family break-ups and divorces increased today compared with the Victorian period?
Is there some data available for this?

Are you saying people divorce over clothing? Are you implying that marriages would be happier and healthier if women were forced to dress like ninjas?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Whoever says that all Muslim women wear hijab by their "free will" is most likely unaware of what happens in a lot of Muslim countries today. That, or they probably have profound misconceptions about what "free will" means.