Chauvinistic or a good idea? Is equating women's clothing with urban decorum really implying that women are 'no more than benches or hedges'?
By Claire Cameron
Last week, the Southern Italian town of Castellamarre di Stabia announced its intention to ban the mini-skirt. Not only would the Italian Glamazons be prevented from showing a bit too much bronzed thigh, but the town mayor, Luigi Bobbio, has clarified that the mini-skirt will not be the only victim. Anything deemed ‘too short’ is to be targeted. This includes: low-cut jeans, revealing tops, teeny-weeny bikinis, hot pants, and whatever else you can imagine spilling out of. Bobbio has stated that women in ‘racy’ outfits should be stopped by police and fined up to 300 euros for disgracing the public decency: “One glance should be enough to judge.” But how does one judge Public Decency? If the heads of the policemen get turned twice? If a girl gets a ‘honk’ from a passing car? Maybe she’ll get some lewd comments thrown in to the bargain? Having been to Italy several times and with many friends who have lived there in the past, everyone I know who has spent more than a day there has experienced all of the above. And yet I do not wear a mini-skirt every day, I don’t enjoy feeling like I am about to tumble out my top and my beach-ware is far more socially acceptable than that great staple of Italian men everywhere: the Speedo. And even if I did want to wear hot pants every day, there is a sharp contrast between a dress with some cleavage on display and causing grave offence to ‘decency’. In response to the measures, centre-left politicians staged a protest sit-in in the town council. Angela Cortese, a councillor, said: “By equating women’s clothing with urban decorum, this measure implies that women are no more than benches or hedges.” Civil pride has come to rest on the image of ‘acceptable womanhood’. I agree with Cortese: using women’s’ appearances as a marker for civility and respectable conduct is not good practice. The reputation of a town does not rest on whether or not someone is showing underwear every time they wiggle as they walk. It isn’t the first time an administration has announced such a ban in recent years: Uganda tried to implement a no-mini law and Chile attempted to prevent women working in the public sector from wearing a mini, citing the clothes as a ‘distraction’ to men and a potential hazard. Who knew a few extra inches of flesh could cause road accidents, a decrease in productivity and encourage sexual harassment in the work place? I can understand a man getting a bit hot under the collar if he saw his work colleague in suspenders and a ‘GET IT HERE’ sign around her neck, but a short skirt or a low cut top? Quite frankly I would not expect sexual harassment even if I were wearing a paper bag. I would be less shocked if this news story came out of a country in which women are actively curtailed in their freedoms and prevented by law from expressing themselves. But this isn’t Iran. It is Italy: a member of the European Union, a democracy, and an apparently liberal society. The last time Italy asserted political control over its female citizenry was before the Second World War. Is it not worrying that these attitudes find their historical parallel in a fascist state? Surely an enlightened western country cannot support the institutionalisation of the female form? Causing undue offence? Yes, that should be disciplined. A person’s clothes should not be within the bounds of legislation. A bit of bum cheek on show might be tasteless, but it is never criminal.