Why Women Back Then Wanted to Cover Up & Why We Want to Free the Nipple Now
Patriarchy and Socially Constructed Norms Strike Again
Sheryl Sebastian illustrates readers on the “Mula karam”; a tax lower class women in Kerala would have to fork over in order to wear clothing that would cover their breasts. But on the other hand, higher class women were able to fully conceal their bodies since clothing was portrayed as a sign of wealth and modesty. While Christianity and Catholicism became increasingly more prominent, religious women were then granted the right to half-way cover their chests as a way to distinct superiority over the lower class, but maintain oppression from the affluent class. This has patriarchy and social construct written all over it.
While reading Sebastian’s article, one word that stuck out to me was the word “considered”. For instance, “Clothing was considered a sign of wealth and prosperity and the poor and the lower-castes were simply not entitled to it”. Who considered this? Why do they get to consider? And how did they come to consider? The answer to all of these questions revolves around the idea of wealth and power. The government was able to inflict control of society, especially the lower class, by inhabiting a person’s basic needs. Once wealth and power combine, this “elite” group of people can then become the determiners of what is acceptable and non-acceptable in society.
Another huge (and ironic) factor regarding social construction is the idea that men are automatically placed in a position where they are allowed to determine social norms. In the case of the Kerala women, the patriarchal system was stressing emphasis on social class and how women are supposed to dress their own bodies. Although lower class men were also victims of the Mula karam, women had to decipher if they would rather go into debt or bear their chests to the world. Since modesty and dressing conservative was the social objective, of course lower class women would aim to pay their dues to cover their breasts. But regardless of if women cared to be modest or not, clothing should have been a choice. Protests for reform including the Nangeli and Chirukandan’s protests, was nothing short of heroic and necessary because they were being forced to comply.
Why Modesty Anyway?
Modesty can be associated with terms such as pure, decent, and “freedom from vanity and exaggeration”. The notions behind the word can be found in almost every era in history and the continues to be prevalent in society. In many religions such as Christianity, Catholicism, and Islamic communities, practicing modesty is one of the key components to being a “righteous” woman. “Righteous” women are then seen worthy of marriage, respect, and authority. No wonder the higher class and religious women in Kerala had the privilege of concealing their bosoms. Forcing perceptions on women is a perfect way to the patriarchy keeps many oppressed.
More Influences of Modesty
The “Cult of Domesticity” was another venue in which the idea of “modesty” had become a prevalent idea in society. The “Cult of Domesticity” refers to the idea that women should be bound to cooking and cleaning, taking care of the children, and maintaining a happy, fully-functioning home. Ultimately, the woman was supposed to uphold 4 main categories: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. Attaining to these characteristics means not only carrying yourself in a subdued manner, but also dressing the part. Middle and higher class women were expected to dress for their husbands; in feminine clothing covering their chests and knees so they can be pleasing to the eye for their spouse. However, these constructed norms were (and still are) crippling to women. Before the Women’s Rights Movement, women could not work, could not own land or acquire wealth, and were seen inferior. Women were not educated, or had social lives outside the home. When social constructs start forcing women’s oppression, the need to reclaim power ignites. At the time conventions such as Seneca Falls, and The Feminine Mystique emerged from this time of women’s liberation. Now we Free the Nipple and Slut Walk.
Why We Want to Free The Nipple Now
The Free The Nipple Campaign along with Amber Rose’s “Slut Walk” is oddly connected to the women in Kerala and Nangeli’s protest because both protests are symbolizing women reclaiming their own bodies from patriarchy. Nangeli cut off her breast to combat the inequalities against lower class women. She took an extremely radical approach to draw attention to a major issue in her community. The Free The Nipple Campaign is similar because protesters are also taking a radical approach by bearing their breasts to break down stigmas against women’s bodies, challenging stereotypes about “modesty” and the breast itself, and providing awareness about injustices that women have against men. Mass media such as movies and television shows, along with social media has continued to portray women as nothing more than sexual objects; undeserving of equal rights or respect. The woman’s nipple is either viewed offensively or erotically-and both of those conceptions are discriminatory and intolerable. Normalizing women’s breasts, and women in general instead of sexualizing and censoring them are ideologies that power the movement.
The Slut Walk works similarly as the objective is to reclaim women’s sexuality and portray how sexual violence is not associated with women’s fashion or sexual fluidity. The walk aimed to clap back at constructed norms of what a “slut” is and demand discussion over double standards. The Slut Walk was another progressive protest that is aiming to show that society cannot force oppression on women through negative perceptions that the system has concocted. The overall message between the women of Kerala, Seneca Falls, and the women who Slut Walk is that women will not continue to be oppressed, women are in complete control of their bodies and will make their own decisions whether or not to bare them.
