Women Wear Bras…Get Over It

When I was in 5th grade, my mother started telling me to wear a tank top underneath my shirt. I didn’t understand at the time this was her way of transitioning me into wearing a bra without having to bring up such a distasteful word. And it’s word ripe with negative connotations.

After all, bras are a reminder that women have breasts and that this is a main biological difference between males and females. It is the reason women are not permitted to go shirtless despite both sexes having a chest area and nipples. Somehow, having breasts must make women inferior.

It seems that way, as when growing up I was constantly embarrassed to even say the word bra or have it come up in conversation. There was an episode of The Amanda Show where during a sketch in outer space, Amanda’s space ship was attacked by a giant bra. I was offended and mortified watching that episode with my brother and I left the room. I was too young to be wearing a bra yet, but I understood there was a horrible connotation with female underwear and I was ashamed I would one day be associated with something so vile. I explained that there was a flying bra in The Amanda Show to my mother and I had to use the offensive word and that somehow made the situation worse. It was barely 30 seconds out of a 20 minute television show, but that attacking bra still tugs at my mind that a woman’s body is evil and destructive.

I am well aware of the counter arguments to my point: 1. it’s a comedy show so they weren’t trying to be offensive  2.it was said by a woman and therefore it’s okay, and 3. I’m overreacting. But this wasn’t comedy to debunk stereotypes and it didn’t explain why a woman’s body and what she is told to wear is not evil. Laughter is only the best medicine when it’s laughter with purpose and direction not geared to oppress. As to the show starring a woman and the joke being said by a woman, that does not make the joke funny any more than it makes it excusable. Women do not have the right to put other women down anymore than men do. And no, this is not an overreaction because I was traumatized by this one memorable instance where it felt shameful and horrible to be a girl. No one should have to go through that.

From early middle school into most of high school I didn’t wear bras. I wore tank tops with bras built into them because I hated underwire and I was embarrassed when someone could see the outline of my bra through my shirt. But above all, I didn’t want to be associated with wearing bras. I didn’t want to be a woman.

The last time I went bra shopping with my mother at the mall, my brother was at the mall with us. To explain where we were going, my mother told him we were going to go get me unmentionables. Bra is not a word for polite conversation and is apparently not even polite speech within families. Heaven forbid my brother realize I’m a woman and that I wear a bra! Heaven forbid the world catches on that half the population is female and most are expected to wear bras! It all goes back to the nipple conundrum, I suppose.

This is not to perpetuate the stereotype of the bra burning feminist. My point is that female biology is treated radically different than male biology and this is a tactic to keep women feeling poorly about themselves. If women’s underwear is linked directly to sex and being sexy then there is a cultural connotation that sexualizes women’s bodies no matter whether they wear Victoria’s Secret or a run of the mill Sport’s Bra. It’s the breasts that are sexy and the bra just increases this natural sex appeal and so women are naturally more sexy than men (the female body is supposedly always sexy because of a woman’s breasts). By this theory, there is a  need to keep this sexy nature under control.

Breasts are always tempting to men and therefore evil, but to dissuade this perpetuation of rape culture being featured prominently in the media, when bras aren’t advertised as sexy they are portrayed as funny. The only reason bras can be played as humorous is because they are directly linked to women and not only is it okay to sexualize the female form but it is also okay to portray the sexualizing device as necessary and evil.

 

I’m not suggesting women go burn their bras as signs of the patriarchy and oppression, but use the word. Take back the word bra to mean support or however else you define it. If we can own the word feminist we can take back the word bra. Bras are not synonymous to Victoria’s Secret, they’re not a measure of your worth, they’re not designed as a gag to make fun of women, and above all they are not evil.

A woman’s body is not evil and there is nothing to be ashamed about.

*NOTE:For more information on wearing bras and why women should or should not wear them, check out this link:

http://www.007b.com/why_wear_bras.php

Advertisements

Chi-Chi and Dragon Ball Z

*NOTE*This is the first detailed installment of a series on the female characters of Dragon Ball Z. For the overview of sexism in the series click here. My analysis will be based off the manga not the original anime.

Although Bulma is the primary female character for most of the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, Chi-Chi is the character who is solely played for laughs, where Bulma is at least acknowledged as being a genius.

Chi-Chi is introduced as a fighter (as you can tell by her ‘warrior outfit‘) though despite her bikini armor she has very few action scenes. All she does is throw the spike on her helmet to kill a dinosaur and then shoot a laser from her helmet to disintegrate the body. This could potentially be a great display of ingenuity and skill, but when she fights a dessert bandit named Yamcha she is taken out with one hit. In this way she is dismissed as a competent fighter and is shown to have no skills on her own.

Although Dragon Ball itself is not meant to be taken seriously (especially in the earlier volumes) Chi-Chi is given dialogue like “Oo, this is ‘jes’ too dang freaky” and “Waah!! That was SCAAARY!!”. She is laughably stupid even compared to a character like Goku, who has no education and is typical of the  idiot hero trope. Chi-Chi’s ignorance is not cute or lovable, she is written off as a hick.

At the beginning of every volume of the manga there’s a page of main characters that gives a brief description of each in addition to catching the reader up on the plot. The description of Chi-Chi is as follows:

“A strange girl who Yamcah…ran into. She has a tendency to overreact.”

This is Akira Toriyama’s fall back for Chi-Chi: it will be funny if she’s the hysterical woman. And Chi-Chi is constantly ‘overreacting’ though in reality most of it is for her own safety. Goku, having lived in the woods all twelve years of his life does not know how to tell the difference between boys and girls except by patting their gentitals. When Goku does such, Chi-Chi responds:

“Get your hands off me!!!!”

and proceeds to push Goku off the flying cloud they’re traveling on and screams just before she crashes the cloud into a boulder. Once the two are traveling again, Chi-Chi’s dialogue shows that she is still upset, explaining that “[he] did plenty!!!” to deserve being pushed off the cloud, but the next panel of the manga she is blushing. Her inner thoughts read as such:

“But, thought the maiden, having been touched ‘there’ what else could it mean but that she would become this youth’s wife?”

Granted, Goku was not trying to molest her or make her uncomfortable, but it is wrong of Akira Toriyama to brush aside this complete disrespect of Chi-Chi as a female. Goku did not know what he was doing, but Akira Toriyama did. Akira Toriyama was well aware of how he treated Chi-Chi and was equally aware that Chi-Chi is a Japanese word for breasts. Because the author does not treat her with respect none of his characters do either. Not even her own father. Without her being present her father offers her in marriage to Goku. This is never addressed as being a sexist issue and toward the end of the Dragon Ball series, Chi-Chi comes back into the story after having spent the past six years of her life waiting for Goku to come back to her and claim her hand.

She is written as fully accepting of her weaker status as a woman, both as a fighter-who can never even come close to matching her male counterparts- and as a person-who revolves her life around a young boy who she barely knows. Goku and Chi-Chi do get married at the very end of Dragon Ball though it is seen as more obligatory on Goku’s part who, when he and Chi-Chi part ways,agrees that

“whatever [Chi-Chi’s father] wants to give me I’ll be sure to come an’ get! Count on it!”

Chi-Chi is referring to marriage, but Goku does not know what marriage is. He finds out six years later, when Chi-Chi demands he keep his promise and he agrees. To Akira Toriyama, marriage is something imposed upon men and is another example of the woman overreacting over nothing.

Throughout Dragon Ball Z, Chi-Chi becomes even more of a sexist character. Her role is diminished to being a constant worrying mother over her son Gohan. Her ‘overreacting’ as her emotions are played, are in fact quite reasonable. She does not want her 4 year old son being turned into a warrior or traveling the galaxy or being put into life or death situations with his father. Her concern is understandable, but it played as the hysterics of a ranting woman who cannot keep herself under control. As a woman she does not see the big picture that her son is needed to save the world. As a woman she cannot have the same scope of vision as a man.

Akira Toriyama does all that he can to discredit her opinions, demean her actions, and keep her uneducated and in her place as a side character written solely for laughs. This is unfortunate because Goku, Chi-Chi, and Gohan have the best chance in the series of establishing a stable family relationship where there can be a break from the constant fight scenes. If these rare family moments were taken seriously, a loving equal relationship between husband wife could have possible to portray. Chi-Chi was never taken seriously.

 

Why are nipples sexy?

I play frisbee on a regular basis with my older brother and some of his friends. I’m usually one of two or three girls out of approximately 14 people who show up to play. It’s summer. It’s hot. I understand that a few of the guys want to take off their shirts. It’s a different story when they joke about one team being  ‘skins’ because then automatically myself and whoever else happens to have been born with female anatomy are excluded from said team. Our ability to play is no longer a factor.

Which leads me to question why do nipples exude sexuality? A woman could walk around in pasties and although she wouldn’t be considered ‘decent’, it’s a whole different story when her bare breast is entirely exposed. It’s one inch of a person’s body that is only sexy because it on the end of a woman’s breast.

If nipples are only around to serve as a feminine attribute that justifies the notion of the nurturing mother breast feeding her child, then the cartoons have it right. Cartoon men do not have nipples.

But I didn’t know that when I was a child. I would draw women with no eyebrows and men with no eyelashes.

As a child what did I know of nipples? But I knew (though I couldn’t tell you where I learned it) that certain features were masculine and certain features were feminine. If you messed that up your drawing was worthless because who would be able to tell if you had drawn a lovely woman or a handsome man?

Based on this cartooning logic there is only one solution to the nipple problem: nipples should be exclusive to the female just like eyelashes so no one can ever be confused again.

But in all seriousness, it’s one thing to pick me last when playing frisbee because, as a woman, I’m not as strong or fast a a man. It’s something else entirely when the sexism goes from being unintentional unconscious perceptions to blatant ostracism based on anatomy men and women both share. I’m not asking women to run around topless to prove a point, but I am asking men and women to question why it is acceptable for a man to bare his nipples to the world and for a woman to need to cover up.