Inspection could rediscover, that may show how a bird might be inhibited or damaged by it except in the most

Casual manner. It is only when you step back, quit studying the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a
macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you could see why the bird will not go anyplace; and then you’ll see it in
a minute. It’ll need no great subtlety of mental abilities. It’s perfectly obvious that the fowl is encircled by a
network of systematically associated obstacles, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by
toward women, and reinforces patterns of male domination over girls.111
In our culture, breasts could be subjected to sell drinks to guys in bars, but women might not be topfree on a
Seashore for their very own comfort and happiness. Reena Glazer writes: “The criminalization of women baring their breasts,
therefore, signifies that society views women’s bodies as immoral and something to hide. There’s something
potentially offender about every girl simply by virtue of being female.” 112
Herald Price Fahringer writes, “men have the right to cover or expose their torsos as they see fit–women do
not. Men possess the right to relish the sun, water, and wind without a top; women do not. Few guys would be willing
to give up this right. Then why shouldn’ nudism pictures love the same advantage? . . . Demanding women to cover their
breasts in public is a very visible expression of inequality between women and men that promotes an attitude that
For centuries, men have held the capacity to create these
misconceptions. The male view on the exposure of a lady ‘s breasts is crucially affected by the demand of men to
This reaction comes from a masculine ideology that has . . . doomed generations of women to a
secondary status.” 113
“So what is actually at stake is whether women will probably be to bare their own
breasts in suitable public places for their own personal goals on such affairs in which they feel free to do
so, or whether they’ll only be allowed to bare their breasts in public on an occasion that may be exploited
commercially and that reinforces the idea that the sole function of the female breast is for the satisfaction of man
of a corporation or a commercial entrepreneur.” 114
81. Laws ban exposure of female breasts do so in part because of the reaction such exposure would
supposedly cause in men. Such laws are written completely from the male perspective, and ignore the standpoint of
women, who may want to go topfree for their very own relaxation.
82. By refusing to accept the demand to “protect” themselves from guys by covering their bodies, women increase
power, and change the load of responsible behavior to guys, where it rightfully belongs.
Reena Glazer notes that “male power is perpetuated by viewing women as things that guys behave and react
to rather than as actors themselves. . . . their entire worth is derived from the reaction they are able to cause from men. In
order to preserve the patriarchal system, men must determine when and where this arousal is allowed to occur.
This way, the (heterosexual) male myth of a lady ‘s breasts has been codified into law. Because women are the
sexual things and property of men, it follows that what might arouse guys can only be shown when guys desire to
be aroused.” This emphasis on women as temptresses “transfers the burden of responsibility from men to women;
because women arouse uncontrollable impulses in males, society justifies male behavior and attributes the victim for
whatever happens. . . . To sanction the concept that men have uncontrollable impulses implies that violence against
Girls is inevitable.” 115
83. Patriarchal laws strip women of the right to control their very own bodies, but there have consistently been
“exceptions” to obscenity laws which allow the usage of women’s bodies in consumer seduction. Therefore female nudity
is considered improper on the beach, but is omnipresent in advertising and porn.
84. By enforcing arbitrary clothing requirements for girls (requiring them to cover their tops), the
government acts in loco parentis, in the role of a parent. This really is demeaning to women. Like children, they’re not
Surrendered the ability or right to determine the way to dress, substantially as they formerly were not permitted to vote, own property, or
exercise other rights.116
85. The repression of healthy female nudity fuels pornography.
Herbert Muschamp observes: “To object to the naked body in a general interest magazine while enabling it
to remain in men’s skin magazines is one way of keeping girls in their own place.” 117