Reconsidering the burqa
Campus Times
February 13, 2004
2004 already looks fun. Dangerously adaptive diseases threaten the lives of
people and animals at home and abroad, this decade’s civil war is afoot
in Haiti while the sporadic yet unyielding procession of death continues to
trickle out of Iraq.
As a responsible journalist, I must recognize the importance of keeping abreast
of the truly relevant issues, however.
Twelve days after Janet Jackson’s unfettered breast failed to titillate
the staunch sensibilities of football fans, regulatory agencies, Congress, watchdog
moralists and opportunistic lawsuits, each competes to shout their condemnation
the loudest. Across the nation, heads shake in a consensus of contempt.
As if Super Bowl Sunday was only harmless family amusement before Justin’s
bodice busting misadventure.
Between cheering as men in tight pants smashed each other, audiences also
enjoyed those wonderful corporate promotions for which the event has become
famous.
Like the elderly couple beating on each other for a bag of chips, the dog
biting a man’s crotch for a beer and the horse farting on a woman’s
head. Or Ditka, tossing a soft pass through an old tire to promote Levitra.
Tell me, what was the offensive part again?
It has been suggested that, not having a child, I cannot understand.
Mistakenly, I assumed it would be much easier to talk about a brief flash
of a woman’s breast with a child than to explain erectile dysfunction and
the medical consequences of a four-hour erection.
It seems that Jackson’s brazen, star-emblazoned, display turned Feb.
1 into the Sept. 11 for American prudence.
The incident so affected one Tennessee woman that she opened the War on Indecency
with a salvo of lawsuits against everyone involved.
Although she withdrew the suits on Tuesday, she claimed, among other grievances,
that Jackson’s metal ensconced areola caused her “serious injury.”
For the more than 100 civilians and soldiers blown up this week in Iraq, “serious
injury” would be a fair complaint.
How a passing glance at half of one woman’s chest makes for much ado
about anything, let alone serious injury, escapes reason.
What, exactly, is so offensive?
Given the creativity of cleavage, it would seem that nipple exposure is what
turns nice into naughty.
Nipples alone don’t seem inherently dangerous, as only those belonging
to females cause problems.
As objects of nourishment, our relationship with women’s breasts begins
with life.
As soon as the breast is plucked from a child’s mouth, it seems to immediately
become a forbidden object. Is it fear, or shame?
At its root, it has more to do with an outmoded sense of property than propriety.
Like the glossy magazines which place them aside the latest products, a woman’s
breasts are a commodity to be secured and protected.
In the meantime, the fallout from when-it-fell-out is rippling out into new
legislation and new threats to free speech. After everyone has forgotten the
incident, in say, a week or so, will there still be consequences?
Could the five-minute tape delay at the Oscar awards be used to filter out
other “offensive” actions, such as last year’s comments by director
Michael Moore calling into question the legitimacy of invading Iraq?
But wait, if we forget about Janet, whatever will we talk about? I hear she
has a brother…
Kenneth Todd Ruiz, a senior journalism major, is editor in chief of the
Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at kruiz@ulv.edu.
