One in five women will be raped in their lifetime. This statistic can be unnerving to some, but to others it is just a number. Although rape is such a large problem in our society, it seems to have become a normality and consequence of life. Girls are being taught to cover up their bodies to protect themselves, while boys are being taught that sexual violence is a byproduct of natural instincts. The use of terms like “boys will be boys” shows that there is a lack of discipline for boys’ harassment. The term “boys will be boys” justifies the actions of males, while terms like “"she was asking for it" blame females. This sends the message that both women and even young girls should claim responsibility for not dressing properly, or leading on
…show more content…
In 1980, dress codes in the workplace were found to be sexist and lead to women’s objectification, due to the fact that dress codes taught women that their bodies were more dangerous than that of a man’s. In December of 1980 Mary M. Carroll brought the Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings & Loan Association to court to go fight sexist dress codes in places of work by claiming they were against Title VII (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). Title VII was created in 1964 and protects equality by prohibiting employers to discriminate for any reasons: gender, age, race, religion, national origin, or sex (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). The Chicago-Kent Law Review describes the case briefly: “…dress code requiring its female employees to wear a uniform… while only requiring male employees in the same job position to wear ‘appropriate business attire’” (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). Dress codes in the 1980s seemed to be limited, so I was interested in hearing first-hand what they were …show more content…
Since it is easier to access, it also accounts for a lot of female objectification leading to the acceptance of sexual violence in our society. Sexual material, in this case porn, contributes to sexual violence today. “Exposure to pornography helps to sustain young people’s adherence to sexist and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships. And, especially among boys and young men who are frequent consumers of pornography, including of more violent materials, consumption intensifies attitudes supportive of sexual coercion and increases their likelihood of perpetrating assault. While children and young people are sexual beings and deserve age-appropriate materials on sex and sexuality, pornography is a poor, and indeed dangerous, sex educator” (The harms of pornography exposure among children and young people). The industry of pornography normalizes and promotes sexual violence because much of the industry is based around male dominance. Male dominance stimulates rape and sexual assault in many situations. Porn promotes male dominance and objectifies women, therefore porn can stimulate rape. Porn can “(1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user 's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers
In 1980, dress codes in the workplace were found to be sexist and lead to women’s objectification, due to the fact that dress codes taught women that their bodies were more dangerous than that of a man’s. In December of 1980 Mary M. Carroll brought the Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings & Loan Association to court to go fight sexist dress codes in places of work by claiming they were against Title VII (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). Title VII was created in 1964 and protects equality by prohibiting employers to discriminate for any reasons: gender, age, race, religion, national origin, or sex (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). The Chicago-Kent Law Review describes the case briefly: “…dress code requiring its female employees to wear a uniform… while only requiring male employees in the same job position to wear ‘appropriate business attire’” (Disparate Dress Codes as Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII). Dress codes in the 1980s seemed to be limited, so I was interested in hearing first-hand what they were …show more content…
Since it is easier to access, it also accounts for a lot of female objectification leading to the acceptance of sexual violence in our society. Sexual material, in this case porn, contributes to sexual violence today. “Exposure to pornography helps to sustain young people’s adherence to sexist and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships. And, especially among boys and young men who are frequent consumers of pornography, including of more violent materials, consumption intensifies attitudes supportive of sexual coercion and increases their likelihood of perpetrating assault. While children and young people are sexual beings and deserve age-appropriate materials on sex and sexuality, pornography is a poor, and indeed dangerous, sex educator” (The harms of pornography exposure among children and young people). The industry of pornography normalizes and promotes sexual violence because much of the industry is based around male dominance. Male dominance stimulates rape and sexual assault in many situations. Porn promotes male dominance and objectifies women, therefore porn can stimulate rape. Porn can “(1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user 's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers