It's time to stop policing women's clothing and start raising our expectations of men.

When it comes to what we wear, women can't win.

There was a time in our history when a woman showing her ankles in public was considered whorish. That sounds extreme and ridiculous now, of course, but the same mindset that compelled women to wear floor-length, chin-high dresses—that men are basically animals with limited self-control—is still alive and well.

We see it in school dress codes that disallow off-the-shoulder shirts because shoulders are too sexy for boys to handle. We see it in op-eds about how leggings are causing boys and men to stumble. We see it in debates over exactly how many inches a skirt length or tank top strap needs to be in order to be considered modest enough to rescue boys and men from the abyss of lust and temptation.


The fact that humans engage in such debates while simultaneously sexualizing women to sell just about everything is a perplexing paradox. The fact that bikinis and burqas are both icons of objectification is an equally confusing conundrum. And since everything between those extremes is subjective, we slip into a sea of unanswerable questions: How much skin is too much skin? How much of a woman's leg is acceptable to see in public? Are shoulders and collarbones too sexy? How about knees and ankles?

We emerge with no answers, but one clear conclusion: Women can't win, no matter what we wear. Is it possible that our clothing is not the problem?

We have plenty of examples of men separating women's clothing from their sexual impulses, so the idea that men simply can't help themselves when they see skin is bunk.

The way some people talk, you'd think that men have zero control over how they see a woman. If her shirt shows a centimeter too much cleavage, or if her pants hug a curve a little too tightly, it's all over for the poor, helpless dude.

But is that always the case? For the folks who have an issue with leggings—have you ever seen a woman bobsledder or speed skater in the Olympics? They wear skin tight outfits that show every single curve in their bodies. But somehow I've never seen men ogling speed skaters as a habit, nor have I seen women complaining that bobsledding outfits are causing their sons/husbands/brothers to think impure thoughts.

Why? Because men are not beasts, incapable of compartmentalizing and contextualizing what they're looking at.

Is it possible that some men watch figure skating in order to look at women in skimpy leotards? Sure. Do some men watch women's swimming events just to see the women's bodies in their suits? Maybe. But my guess is not many do. Most men recognize that the outfit and the body parts it might reveal are secondary to the feats the woman is performing on the ice or in the water, so they compartmentalize accordingly.

How is that possible? Because it's not about what women are wearing.

When we make women responsible for men's thoughts, we do a disservice to both women and men.

It is grossly unfair to tell girls that they are responsible for the thoughts of the boys around them—but that's the message they get when we tell them their clothes are a "distraction." And boys get the message, too. What do we expect to happen when we tell boys that their sexual thoughts can't be helped and are caused by a girl's clothing choice?

We’re still having to fight the erroneous idea that women and girls “ask” to be raped by the way they dress. While there's a place for discussing clothing as an element of how we present ourselves to the world, as soon as we put blame on women because boys and men can't control themselves, we are on the wrong path.

We've got to stop selling the idea that men are helpless slaves to their sex drives, because it's simply not true. Yes, sexual thoughts happen. Yes, you might see things that turn you on. But being human means rising above animal instincts. You have the ability to shift your gaze. You are capable of choosing how you view someone. We all have to manage our thoughts and exercise self-control, and the only person responsible for what's happening inside your head is you.

Responsibility for men's thoughts and actions should not be placed on women's shoulders. Ever.

Besides, if women were to stop wearing everything that might have a chance of turning on a man, we’d be back to the era of chin-high, floor-length dresses again. And even then, some men would still objectify women. Because it's not about what women wear and never has been.

It's long past time we start start raising society's expectations of men instead of focusing on women's clothing.

via Good Morning America

Anyone who's an educator knows that teaching is about a lot more than a paycheck. "Teaching is not a job, but a way of life, a lens by which I see the world, and I can't imagine a life that did not include the ups and downs of changing and being changed by other people," Amber Chandler writes in Education Week.

So it's no surprise that Kelly Klein, 54, who's taught at Falcon Heights Elementary in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, for the past 32 years still teaches her kindergarten class even as she is being treated for stage-3 ovarian cancer.

Her class is learning remotely due to the COIVD-19 pandemic, so she is able to continue doing what she loves from her computer at M Health Fairview Lakes Medical Center in Wyoming, Minnesota, even while undergoing chemotherapy.

Keep Reading Show less
True

If the past year has taught us nothing else, it's that sending love out into the world through selfless acts of kindness can have a positive ripple effect on people and communities. People all over the United States seemed to have gotten the message — 71% of those surveyed by the World Giving Index helped a stranger in need in 2020. A nonprofit survey found 90% helped others by running errands, calling, texting and sending care packages. Many people needed a boost last year in one way or another and obliging good neighbors heeded the call over and over again — and continue to make a positive impact through their actions in this new year.

Upworthy and P&G Good Everyday wanted to help keep kindness going strong, so they partnered up to create the Lead with Love Fund. The fund awards do-gooders in communities around the country with grants to help them continue on with their unique missions. Hundreds of nominations came pouring in and five winners were selected based on three criteria: the impact of action, uniqueness, and "Upworthy-ness" of their story.

Here's a look at the five winners:

Edith Ornelas, co-creator of Mariposas Collective in Memphis, Tenn.

Edith Ornelas has a deep-rooted connection to the asylum-seeking immigrant families she brings food and supplies to families in Memphis, Tenn. She was born in Jalisco, Mexico, and immigrated to the United States when she was 7 years old with her parents and sister. Edith grew up in Chicago, then moved to Memphis in 2016, where she quickly realized how few community programs existed for immigrants. Two years later, she helped create Mariposas Collective, which initially aimed to help families who had just been released from detention centers and were seeking asylum. The collective started out small but has since grown to approximately 400 volunteers.

Keep Reading Show less
True
Gates Foundation

Once upon a time, a scientist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet that he had discovered a link between autism and vaccines.

After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.

Keep Reading Show less

In the autumn of 1939, Chiune Sugihara was sent to Lithuania to open the first Japanese consulate there. His job was to keep tabs on and gather information about Japan's ally, Germany. Meanwhile, in neighboring Poland, Nazi tanks had already begun to roll in, causing Jewish refugees to flee into the small country.

When the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania in June of 1940, scores of Jews flooded the Japanese consulate, seeking transit visas to be able to escape to a safety through Japan. Overwhelmed by the requests, Sugihara reached out to the foreign ministry in Tokyo for guidance and was told that no one without proper paperwork should be issued a visa—a limitation that would have ruled out nearly all of the refugees seeking his help.

Sugihara faced a life-changing choice. He could obey the government and leave the Jews in Lithuania to their fate, or he could disobey orders and face disgrace and the loss of his job, if not more severe punishments from his superiors.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Sugihara was fond of saying, "I may have to disobey my government, but if I don't, I would be disobeying God." Sugihara decided it was worth it to risk his livelihood and good standing with the Japanese government to give the Jews at his doorstep a fighting chance, so he started issuing Japanese transit visas to any refugee who needed one, regardless of their eligibility.

Keep Reading Show less