It's 2020 folks. 2020!

[aliasundercover]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/i-am-not-a-slapper-labour-mp-tracy-brabin-defends-her-commons-attire

The pic in the story is very disappointing. I thought she was going to be wearing a basque or something

Just looked her up. She's an actress by profession. As such she should be aware of the importance of costumes in the credibility of a character.
She's a shadow front bench spokesperson and that costume was completely inappropriate for her role.

I still don't think many 14 year old girls want to be ogled by men.

In fact most women don't want to be ogled by men.

It was the earlier posters saying that schoolgirls roll their skirts up to get male sexual attention that bothered me.

Girls do this from young
And it's not the case that they all do it for that reason

14/15 was brought in later. No idea where that age came from tbh.

Society thinks it knows the motivations of girls once they are over puberty, puts adult motivations on them. Frames then as sexually knowing, deliberately getting men going etc, main reason being that men can be excused when they behave badly. Did you see the length of her skirt, she was asking for it etc.

It bothers me that those posters made such blanket statements.

It bothers me when you see schoolgirls referred to in certain ways due to skirt length. Because it's not a benign thing.

More importantly, what was she saying?

I don't know. I was too busy looking at her shoulder! And that's the point.

This was the original comment I reacted to

'That is the big problem for me in the way that women are brought up to present themselves as primarily, sex objects - looking to attract admiring or lustful glances. women valuing themselves largely as being seen as sexually alluring or attractive.'

I said 'Schoolgirls who roll their skirts up aren't aiming to get 'lustful glances' from adult men, FFS.'

Two posters responded by saying that is exactly why schoolgirls roll their skirts up. Note I had specially mentioned adult men.

Answer 1 said many girls are aiming exactly for that

'Many schoolgirls absolutely are aiming to get lustful glances by rolling their skirts up! That was exactly what we were all after in the 80s when we did it, and we were hardly the first or the last generation to do so.'

They then claimed they were always telling about 14/15 yo although they never stated it at the time! We did it from 11 up.

The idea that a girl who is sexually active underage, is 'sexually knowing' is really dodgy imo.

A lot of people do see female secondary schoolgirls in a really odd way though. And younger, if they are through puberty and their bodies look more grown up.

Well apparently many women on this board (looking at you justhadathought and myimangunarycat..) seem to not be aware we are in 2020 not 1950

I'm well aware of the date thanks! But the facts surrounding the sexualisation of women still stands -and in fact much of women's clothing is designed to emphasise sexuality and sexual attractiveness. Surely you are aware of this? Are you pretending that you are unaware that some women dress to look sexy and to show they still have sexual appeal?

I'm not a pack animal, and I don't feel the need to conform to your view of what 'feminism' entails. I believe that women are fully adult and responsible human beings - and should make choices in accordance with that......and if you don't want to be treated as a sex object, or to attract admiring glances or comments on your 'physical assets' don't put them 'on display' in such obvious ways. It is possible to look confident, stylish and individualistic & professional without having to flash your flesh.

What on earth was the minister trying to communicate with that outfit? That women can wear whatever they like wherever they like, and that not of it is of any consequence? As you are suggesting.

That's not to suggest that some of those on-line comments were acceptable - but they were kind of inevitable - and are likely to be mirrored by the thoughts of people all up and down the country.

But girls and women get looked at, stared at, followed and worse no matter what they wear.

If certain clothes could stop it all, an awful lot of women would be wearing them!

'What on earth was the minister trying to communicate with that outfit? '

She'd been out somewhere else first, I doubt she was trying to communicate anything with it.

I think the idea that women and girls are always sending out deliberate thought through messages with their clothes is a bit ott.

Also these messages will be received differently by different people so the whole thing is pointless.

If I wear a short skirt some people won't notice, some will think that's a nice skirt, some will think I don't like that skirt,v some will think she looks like she wants to get fucked over a wheelie bin etc etc

So how can women do all this communicating if there's no common language in the clothes?

Most of the teenage girls I know, and I have teenage DDs, do not roll their skirts up to get male attention. Male attention would gross them out. My youngest has absolutely no idea that her barely there shorts might attract unwanted attention and sadly I need to point it out to her.

*But girls and women get looked at, stared at, followed and worse no matter what they wear.

If certain clothes could stop it all, an awful lot of women would be wearing them!*

Yup. I pointed this out upthread based on my experience today when a young woman working in uniform was still perved on by a middle aged man.

I'm not a pack animal

I would echo what many other posters have said, nice dress, shouldn’t be worn in a professional setting, no need for vile comments

And sadly, no matter what we wear some creep gets turned on. We could be wearing boiler suits but some fetishist would still be curious as to what we were wearing underneath. No doubt, some man gets off on boiler suits too!

Some men are aroused by young girls and it doesn't matter what they wear, some monster like Huntley will prey on them regardless.

(Sorry, 5 'somes' there)

But girls and women get looked at, stared at, followed and worse no matter what they wear

Yes, but that doesn't mean that wearing obviously sexually alluring/provocative clothing is without meaning or intention, on the part of the wearer, though. Obviously no-one is suggesting that women are responsible fro men's actions, but women do have choices and responsibility too.

The problem is that many women are just so accustomed to dressing to attract sexual interest or flattering comments - that they do it unconsciously. Being seen as attractive in stereotypically 'sexy' ways has become part of their identity.

Its a shame that this has got more coverage than some of the more ridiculous or dangerous comments that are made.

I would echo what many other posters have said, nice dress, shouldn’t be worn in a professional setting, no need for vile comments

I'm not sure what is " vile" about suggesting I'm not one for following the crowd, and i don't care for being politically correct, if I think otherwise.

The response cam after someone had suggested I'd been a bit 'naughty and inappropriate in my comments' ( " yes, I'm looking at you justa thought...."). I'm not a child, nor a pack animal.

The glaringly obvious point here is that most men don't have to give it very much thought at all. In most 'professional' situations (whatever that is supposed to mean!), men just wear a suit, shirt, tie, job done. They might try to be inventive as regards colour of socks, colour of shirt, colour of tie, pinstripe or can I get away with blue, can I wear a waistcoat with that, but that is it. And they don't have to worry about what bits of flesh they are showing most of the time, apart from bulgy shirt fronts and too much hairy tummy........ They just don't......

Whereas women? A TOTAL mine-field. Add in make-up, who might be looking, what age they are, and it should be totally obvious that it just is a totally different situation for women presenting themselves in a public space. From little girls wearing modesty shorts so they can do cartwheels without showing their knickers, to government ministers (remember the focus on Theresa May's shoes?), women are still not free to just be in public spaces. Because those public spaces and what is deemed appropriate attire was never designed for them.....

And then chaps say that they can't choose pretty colours, or wear skimpy clothes in hot summers, or enjoy being gazed at cos they are pretty, and pretend it is somehow equivalent.

And we're still having these discussions over two centuries since Amelia Bloomer was born. Because public spaces still aren't our spaces, as every leering, cat-calling male reminds us................(until you become older and invisible, and unemployable by the BBC in a news-reading capacity...........).

goingovergroud

What's your point? I didn't say any of that or comment on those kinds of charachterisations. I commented on people thinking her clothes were inappropriate for where she was.

I've yet to see anybody point out that the photograph was was taken from a very poor angle. Any off-the-shoulder dress is going to look more revealing than it really is when the wearer is being viewed from above and leaning forward.
Her dress would almost cdertainly look perfectly decent to anyone looking straight at her.

What she wore was inappropriate for the situation.

The response was highly sexist.

I once worked in a casual dress office, one lad came in wearing a revealing vest and high cut shorts in summer. We immediately made sure his manager told him to cover up.

@Goosefoot You commented that there is no direct equivalent for men because men's clothes aren't considered "sexy" (I'm paraphrasing). My reply was that there is a direct historical equivalent, if men dressed flamboyantly, it would have been acceptable to make critical comments suggesting that they look gay. No one would accept that kind of homophobic comment now yet it is still acceptable to suggest that a woman looks like a slapper or she has been shagging someone behind the bins because of the way she is dressed. Your response was "Hmm, I wonder."

Perhaps she wanted publicity and ttrolling in order to raise her "public profile". It detracted badly from the motion she was debting.

What I objected to was her grinning ear to ear on TV this morning defending the BBC license fee by happily stating that only five people were actually jailed last year for non payment. I'd have thought Labour shoud be defending the poor and in debt being relentlessly hassled for non payment. The world has "turned updside down"

The glaringly obvious point here is thatmostmen don't have to give it very much thought at all. In most 'professional' situations (whatever that is supposed to mean!), men just wear a suit, shirt, tie, job done

Anything departing from a suit etc. will get short shrift.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand that wearing an evening dress to the office is going to look peculiar.