7 Things To Consider Before Telling Women Not To Wear Leggings

7 Things To Consider Before Telling Women Not To Wear Leggings

It's not up to you to decide.

Last week, Fox News broadcasted a clip in response to a viral video posted on the Internet in October claiming that “leggings aren’t pants.” Of course, there are ways to report on such things in a respectful, unbiased way, however, I think most would agree that three middle-aged men making crude and, at times, suggestive comments to the faces of three different legging-clad women is neither respectful nor unbiased. They proceeded to answer questions regarding women “parading” around in whatever they please and the various things they will or will not allow their daughters to wear.

Among the comments the men made were statements suggesting that one woman had “earned” the right to wear the leggings, that leggings were only appropriate for younger girls if they were also wearing a diaper, and that women should really only wear clothes out and about if it would be appropriate to wear said clothes in a monastery (as a side note, the rolled up sleeves of one of the men on the panel would be considered disrespectful in a monastery). Another man admitted that he himself wears tights from time to time. Seeing something like this on such a widely watched news source, whose (often forgotten) job is to report rather than create newsworthy material, was infuriating to me. To avoid seeming as disrespectful and tactless as these men, here are seven things to consider before telling a woman what she can or cannot wear.

Women are, in fact, people.

People like looking good, and people like being comfortable, and there are lots of different ways to accomplish these things but leggings do them both.

Underneath those leggings is just a human body.

You have probably taken middle school biology. Maybe you’ve even seen a naked person before. Chances are, you know what a human body looks like so leggings should not be “shocking” or “offensive” to you just because they make it so that you can tell that a woman’s body is shaped like a body.

You get to decide where you look.

Sometimes I watch scary movies and I look away during the gory parts. Sometimes when I’m driving, the sun gets in my eyes and I put the sun visor down. You get to decide where you look and if leggings bother you, you could consider looking at something that doesn’t. I haven’t asked Hollywood to stop making gory movies or asked the sun to go somewhere else so it isn’t in my eyes.

No one is claiming that every situation is an okay time to wear leggings (or anything else for that matter).

We know what we’re doing. Most women probably would not wear leggings to a wedding. If an employer decides that leggings are too casual for work, that employee gets to decide if it is worth it to her (or him or them) to go against their employer’s wishes. If a school has a legitimate uniform for both girls and boys it is understandable if there are consequences when anyone breaks it. But, it is when people start zeroing in on specific garments and claiming that women should not be seen in them during their everyday lives that they start appearing sexist, juvenile, and generally disrespectful.

By trying to decide how women dress, you are propagating a culture of dramatic sexism.

Victim blame? Efforts to ban abortions? Ridiculously insufficient maternity-leave policies? All of these things are a result of someone deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her body, often so that men can avoid facing their thoughts, actions or responsibilities.

Body shaming is a huge issue in this culture, and leggings-shaming only increases that problem.

If you tell a woman that certain parts of her body, while completely covered in fabric, are unfit for public eyes, there is a good chance this will breed insecurity.

If she’s old enough to dress herself, she’s old enough to make her own decisions.

Any responsibility to help decide what a woman should wear ends roughly at the age of three. If the woman has the motor skills to put clothing on her own body and the mental development to understand which clothes go where, she should be allowed – and encouraged – to make her own decisions when getting dressed in the morning.

Disclaimer: this article is specifically focused on women and leggings because of the recent Fox News clip, however it is not to say that other people wearing leggings are not targets of unfair treatment, or that telling ANYONE what to wear during their everyday life is acceptable.

Cover Image Credit: w.b./l.f.

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments