Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms

14.

TOPLESS IN PUBLIC

The feminists have had their comeuppance, and they don’t much like it.

Several women in both the U.S. and Canada have won court rulings that they could bare their breasts at public parks and swimming pools. They have brought suit under “classical” feminist theory that men and women are in all respects alike, entitled to the same rights, and that since men are permitted by law to go topless in such venues, so must this apply to women.

Some self-styled feminists are spluttering mad. This is no way to achieve equality, they groan. Rather, it will be a field day for exhibitionists on the one hand, and men who like to leer. It will be no fun for the rest of us either, the ones trying to raise young children, or who wish for a modicum of decorum on moral, cultural or aesthetic grounds. For make no mistake about it: this is only the entering wedge. There is little doubt that other women will bring similar suits, and judges will go along with them, if these precedents hold. Today, parks and swimming pools; tomorrow, these places plus anywhere else that men customarily take off their tee shirts; on the basketball court (shirts vs. skins), on the sidewalk on a hot day, at the beach, playing baseball, etc.

Nor can one really fault these exhibitionist feminists. True, the female chest is fraught with sexuality in a way that does not apply to men (contrary to feminists, there are some very strong biological differences between the genders), but rights are rights. Why shouldn’t females have the right to go topless that men so cavalierly assume?

Non-feminists are not all pleased with this new spate of judicial findings either. The female breast, it would appear, is not conducive to morality, to family formation and other desiderata of the conservative right. An exception is sometimes made in this quarter for breastfeeding, but otherwise toplessness is seen as immoral flaunting. Another arrow in this particular quiver is the claim that such lewd behavior will lead to rape: men, it seems, are unable to control their savage impulses at the sight of a naked breast. However, if this were true, we would have to ban not only being half dressed, but also short or tight skirts, low-cut blouses, etc. This way lies making the burqa compulsory for all women; and that is hardly a policy in keeping with libertarian notions of freedom.

The cause of the social problem, and a hint as to its solution, are private property rights. These new judicial dispensations apply only to public property. There is no possibility, at least if private property rights are respected, that women will be able to bare their bosoms, even though men are allowed to, on private golf courses, or amusement parks or shopping malls or stores if the owner of these facilities oppose such semi undress. If McDonalds can refuse service to anyone not wearing shoes, they can do so, at least in the free society, for anyone not attired as desired by this corporation.

And herein lies the hint as to how we can have our cake and eat it, too. How we, as a society, need not treat women any differently than men, and yet can attain a minimal level of sartorial decency: privatize all property; roads, beaches, parks, athletic fields, streets, sidewalks, swimming pools, whatever! Then, private enterprise will handle the rest. Conceivably, there might be some few emporia that allow women to go shirtless when men do, but, likely, these would be very few and far apart. For in the marketplace, the customer is king. If the overwhelming majority wish to maintain a difference between male and female attire, then virtually all entrepreneurs will have to cater to their taste or face a swift and certain bankruptcy (well, assuming no government bailouts). But the tiny minority that wishes to disport itself on the basis of splendid equality between the sexes can also have its way; for surely there will arise on the market business firms willing to cater to their tastes, too.

In this way, in one fell swoop, we obviate the entire debate as to whether women have the right to expose the top half of their bodies. In that direction lie endless arguments over the number of angels dancing on the tips of pins. With no possible rights violation, we confine such behavior to the small percentage of property likely to be utilized by people of this taste. Otherwise, we allow a very small minority to discomfort the rest of society.

There are other side benefits as well. With all property in private hands, the level of safety will rise, as Disneyland type police are much more beholden to their employers, and through them, to the consumer, than are the cops who refused to stop the “wildings” in New York City’s Central Park. Traffic fatalities, too, can be expected to plummet, as we change over from a roadway transportation system which can only be described as “Sovietized” to one more compatible with our basic institutions of private property. (On this see my book Block, Walter. 2009. The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf.)