I recently read an article that posed the question of whether it is appropriate for a feminist to appear nude in public media. Some argue that public female nudity is inconsistent with feminist thought. Even among feminists, however, this is not a settled question. Feminists more closely aligned with male patriarchal oppression theory often argue that female nudity caters to male desire, therefore public female nudity is in complete opposition to the ideals of feminism. Others, typically more aligned with female sexual liberation and female freedom in general, argue that social taboos against female nudity are oppressive to women, and they make tolerance of public female nudity one of their goals. There are also more practical ideals, including the fairly conservative idea that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public freely, without any obligation to cover or otherwise obscure the sight of bare breasts from public view. Who is right though? Are those who put down feminists who appear nude in public media right that they are hypocrites? Are social mores against public nudity truly oppressive and harmful to women? Should public female nudity have exceptions for breastfeeding but nothing else?
For full disclosure, outside of certain kinds of recreation, I personally think that men and women should be held to the same standards of modesty. I don't mean that women should be allowed to go topless. I mean that men shouldn't. The one exception is public breastfeeding. If it would be unreasonable to forbid an adult from consuming food or drink in a location, it is equally unreasonable to forbid a child or infant from consuming food or drink, even if that may require a woman to expose her breasts. Beyond that though, if heat is a problem, one can buy better clothes. If women can get by in hot conditions without having to go around topless, so can men. I don't want to see men's bare chests any more than a woman wants to see another woman's bare breasts. With that out of the way, let's continue.
Why is there any association between public female nudity and feminism? Personally, I have never been able to understand why or how public nudity has anything to do with feminism, aside from the breastfeeding issue. Feminism is, at its core, about women's rights. Does forbidding public female nudity really support women's rights? If not, then no, it isn't hypocritical for a feminist to get naked for a camera. Morally wrong? Perhaps, but not hypocritical. Does allowing public female nudity support women's rights? I guess if you consider public nudity an important right, maybe, but not really. I mean, if equal rights is your only concern, then forbidding men from going topless in public would accomplish the same goal, without offending the moral sensibilities of the majority of the population. Here is what is hypocritical though: Being feminist and putting trivial things like the right to wear less clothing in public ahead of real issues women face, like wage inequality and other workplace discrimination. It is also hypocritical to be anti-feminist and focus on trivial issues like public nudity to avoid talking about the real issues. If you have no argument for the real issues, you have no argument at all. Even feminists don't agree on the public nudity issue, but they all agree on fair treatment in the workplace, even if some may not prioritize that. The fact is, public nudity is not a real feminist issue, and using a feminist's position on public nudity is not a valid strategy for undermining the feminist's character or dedication to feminism.
Thus far, I have stuck mostly to trivial public nudity, like baring one's chest in public, but this isn't what most arguments on nudity in feminist are about. What they are about is posing nude for media publications. This spans the range from underwear model to porn star. Surely a feminist cannot be a porn star without being a hypocrite. Why not? Yes, there is a brand of feminism that is straight up anti-male, but this brand is neither common nor very prominent, and even when it was prominent, it still was not common. Now days it is not even popular among otherwise zealous feminists. Anti-male isn't true feminism though. Feminism is about women's rights. It is not about denying men rights, privileges, or pleasure. It is true that porn encourages men to objectify women. In fact, it is well established fact that the human brain interprets images of nude women as objects where it would interpret images of fully clothed women as people. (This is generally true for men, and it is also true for a majority of women. Note, however, that this applies only to a Western audience. The same kind of studies have not been done on people from cultures where general public nudity is normal and acceptable.) What does this have to do with feminism though? Not much, it turns out. Objectification of women in general is a lot less of a problem than we tend to believe. Most men and women don't objectify women that are not deliberately presented in a sexual context. This is not to say that objectification of women isn't wrong or isn't a problem. It certainly is, and we definitely do it too much in the U.S., though it's worth noting that while it is less of a problem because it is less common we still objectify men too much as well. The fact is, objectification isn't a women's rights issue. It is an issue of generally dehumanizing people. It doesn't just dehumanize the women who are objectified, it also dehumanizes the men and women objectifying them. Both sides are victims. Both sides have a responsibility for stopping it. And as such, it is not a feminist issue; it is a human issue. A feminist who acts in porn isn't hypocritical to feminism. She is supporting an industry built around the dehumanization of people, and to be totally honest, men in porn are actually dehumanized far more than women, because they are nothing more than objects for the viewers to imagine themselves in the place of. Porn might be all sorts of immoral, damaging, and disgusting, but the one thing it isn't is opposed to feminism.
So what about nude art? First, we need to draw the line between art and pornography. This line is primarily in the head of viewer. Porn is any media that is used for the purpose of causing sexual arousal. Artistic nudity is any other media containing nudity which isn't intended to arouse. (One might argue a third type of nudity, technical nudity, that is used for the purpose of learning, but this could reasonably be considered artistic nudity as non-nude educational photographs and drawings are generally considered to be a form of art.) This means that the distinction is with the viewer. An underwear ad used by a person for the purpose of becoming aroused is pornography for that person, in that instance. Media created with the intent to arouse may reasonably be considered pornography in general, even if a particular individual is consuming it artistically and not for the purpose of sexual arousal. Media created with the intent to be artistic and not arousing may reasonably be considered art in general, even if a particular individual uses it to become aroused. Ultimately though, the distinction between art and porn is in how a person chooses to use it. When it comes down to it though, none of this is relevant to feminism. Even nude art is portraying the person as an object. Nude art is actually more objectifying than porn, which is at least interpersonal. An artistic image of a nude person is like an image of a beautiful landscape. The intent is to present the body as an object of beauty, not as a person. Again though, this is not relevant to feminism. This is not an issue of women's rights.
In short, feminism and public nudity really are not connected. The exception is breastfeeding in public, but even that is more about the rights of the babies than the rights of women. Claiming that feminism promotes the legalization of public female nudity is no more correct than saying a feminist is hypocritical for posing nude for art or porn. This is all orthogonal to feminism. Maybe someday women will have workplace equality and workplace discrimination of women will be eliminated. And when that day comes, maybe the most important thing left for feminism to fight for will be equal rights with men in public dress. Maybe public female toplessness will be legalized as a result, but maybe instead, public male toplessness will return to being illegal, because it turns out public male toplessness was fairly widely illegal in the U.S. until the 1930s, when a series of cases end up striking down laws and rules banning public male toplessness. Ironically, we are now having a series of similar cases striking down public female toplessness prohibitions, which some claim is reducing harm to women done by unequal laws. The reality, however, is that this is all just a distraction from real issues that actually cause women harm. In short, the association of public female nudity and feminism is doing more harm than good, by distracting from the real issues of feminism that are actually harming women. The answer to the question of public female nudity and feminism is that they are not related, and trying to relate them is harmful to the goals of feminism. There is no point even trying to argue with those who cry hypocrisy when a feminist participates in nude or even pornographic media, because that is nothing more than a deliberate distraction. I am not saying it is morally right for anyone to participate in pornographic media, but whether a person does or not has nothing to do with feminism.
08 October 2019
14 March 2019
Pi Day 2018
This is the third installment in my series of articles on π. The earlier articles can be found here and here. Due to lack of time, I am going to make this short.
In my previous articles, I built a case for switching to using diameter in most places we currently use radius. The math and science communities have noticed a disconnect in how we use π, and many are now advocating for replacing the very commonly used 2π with τ. In studying this problem, I have traced the cause to the common use of π in equations that use radius. The problem with this is that π is a function of diameter, thus using it with radius (d/2) requires an additional factor of 2 to correct for that. Instead of switching to τ, we should use the natural measure of a circle, which is diameter, where we are using radius. In the second article linked to above, you can find the reduced equations for basic circle and sphere math, using d instead of r, and it is very clear that d is superior in those equations.
Unfortunately, doing the same for trig functions is far more challenging. This is because trig defines circles as fans of infinitesimally thin triangles, where two vertices reside on the edge of the circle and one resides at the center. Treating circles this way requires the use of the radius as the fundamental measure, because the radius is the unit of measure for the triangles. This means that attempting to use diameter in trig instead of radius is likely to make the math far more complicated. Of course, we could just switch to diameter everywhere that it works and stay with radius for trig and related fields.
There may be a better solution, though. I have no faith that this solution will ever be adopted, but it is at least worth consideration, as it may help us to advance and improve trig and geometry. Instead of using triangles, we could use rectangles. Triangles have this fascinating property, where a triangle is half the area of a rectangle with the same height and width dimensions. What is fascinating about this is that if we extend two of the lines out so they have the same length on either side of their common vertex, we get what is a sort of split rectangle. The shape looks like a bow tie, and if we measure one half of it as if it were a rectangle, we can multiply the height and width of that half to get the area of the entire thing. Alternatively, we can measure it like a triangle, multiplying the height and width of the whole thing, then divide by two. This will also get us the area. And in fact, this is what we would get, if we used diameter instead of radius.
It gets better though. If we use diameter to treat circles as these double-triangles, we divide the distance traversed to get the full area by two, and now we have the diameter based unit circle I drew up for my second article linked above.
Of course, the problem still exists that we would ultimately have to redefine all of the trig functions based on double the hypotenuse, and the math and science communities are not going to buy into a change like that. Doing the algebraic conversions might reveal useful patterns though, just as it did with simple circle geometry.
Perhaps next year, I will write an article with some results on the conversions of trig functions to using diameter. That is, assuming I have time work any of that out.
In my previous articles, I built a case for switching to using diameter in most places we currently use radius. The math and science communities have noticed a disconnect in how we use π, and many are now advocating for replacing the very commonly used 2π with τ. In studying this problem, I have traced the cause to the common use of π in equations that use radius. The problem with this is that π is a function of diameter, thus using it with radius (d/2) requires an additional factor of 2 to correct for that. Instead of switching to τ, we should use the natural measure of a circle, which is diameter, where we are using radius. In the second article linked to above, you can find the reduced equations for basic circle and sphere math, using d instead of r, and it is very clear that d is superior in those equations.
Unfortunately, doing the same for trig functions is far more challenging. This is because trig defines circles as fans of infinitesimally thin triangles, where two vertices reside on the edge of the circle and one resides at the center. Treating circles this way requires the use of the radius as the fundamental measure, because the radius is the unit of measure for the triangles. This means that attempting to use diameter in trig instead of radius is likely to make the math far more complicated. Of course, we could just switch to diameter everywhere that it works and stay with radius for trig and related fields.
There may be a better solution, though. I have no faith that this solution will ever be adopted, but it is at least worth consideration, as it may help us to advance and improve trig and geometry. Instead of using triangles, we could use rectangles. Triangles have this fascinating property, where a triangle is half the area of a rectangle with the same height and width dimensions. What is fascinating about this is that if we extend two of the lines out so they have the same length on either side of their common vertex, we get what is a sort of split rectangle. The shape looks like a bow tie, and if we measure one half of it as if it were a rectangle, we can multiply the height and width of that half to get the area of the entire thing. Alternatively, we can measure it like a triangle, multiplying the height and width of the whole thing, then divide by two. This will also get us the area. And in fact, this is what we would get, if we used diameter instead of radius.
It gets better though. If we use diameter to treat circles as these double-triangles, we divide the distance traversed to get the full area by two, and now we have the diameter based unit circle I drew up for my second article linked above.
Of course, the problem still exists that we would ultimately have to redefine all of the trig functions based on double the hypotenuse, and the math and science communities are not going to buy into a change like that. Doing the algebraic conversions might reveal useful patterns though, just as it did with simple circle geometry.
Perhaps next year, I will write an article with some results on the conversions of trig functions to using diameter. That is, assuming I have time work any of that out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)