Bwai, i foni iihn? Wen wi redi wi taak bout ou wi nuo ou fi dash it out ina di daans an ina di bedruum. Wi uman dem ful a chat an tel enibadi se a dem ron man, man no ron dem. Ef yu eva stodi jenda a yuunivorsiti dem tel yu se dis a gud sitn—uman naa jos tek chat frahn man so agen. Bot wen yu dig liikl diipi paas di grong, yu nuotis se uman stil a sofa aanda man-ruul ina nof ada wie, an muo taim nehvn nuotis ou di sistim set gens dem.
Kopl ierz bak, ina Aagos, wahn sikiorti gyaad a Morant Bie (Poblik?) Laibri ton we mi gud fren wen shi go de ina washn spageti schrap jres we kech ar kopl inch biluo ar batam (mi no nuo ou fi se “mid-thigh”—lol). Wen im tel wi se shi kyaahn go iin im shuo wi wahn sain uova di duor we se: ‘No deliberate exposure of intimate body parts or undergarments’. “Bot afta mi bres dem naa shuo!” shi baal out. Shi twis an shi torn, den shi ton bak tu di man ahn se, “Yu kyahn si mi nipl dem?! Yes, se sopm, mi jos se NIPL! Dis a fuulishnis!”
Wen mi tek a beta luk pan di sain mi si wan ting—jenda diskriminieshan. Di wola di ruul dem we dem kliem se nesiseri fi “maintaining the dignity” a di laibri onggl av sitn fi se bout ou uman fi jres. ‘No seta nofi de ina ier’; ‘No skimpi blouz’; ‘No swim suut/shaar shaatz, ar skort’. Yu no si wahn chren yaso? Mi fiil se ef wi ago av jres kuod, i supuoz fi mek sens wen wi kansida di niecha a di aaganizieshan. Ina disya kies ya, mi no si wa yuus de fi tel uman se dem nofi wier kluoz we mek sens fi smadi uu a jres fi soma-weda pan di ailan. Plos, a uu gi dem aatariti fi disaid wa kaina kluoz ‘appropriate’ ar ‘mades’?
Di piipl dem uu sidong a di Jomieka Laibri Sorvis ina dem AC afis a mek-op dem ruul ya mosi figat se wi liv ina chrapikal konchri, we tempricha no jrap luowa dahn se toti tuu digrii ina soma. A iidiat ting fi tel uman se spageti schrap, shaat shaatz an skort, an tingz laik dem de nofi wier ina govament “poblik” bildin—laik aspital. Wa mek wi uda wahn fi rap op wi uman dem ina klaat kyahn kom tu mi. A wa, wi fired se dem ago ton aan man ina di laibri wen dem a riid? Man eva ago luk ef im si sitn we im laik—dat naav notn fi du wid uman an ou dem jres. Fi tel uman we dem fi wier wen dem go eks an wai plies shuo wi gud jos ou diip seksizm ron ina di sosaiyati. So uman ano diisent smadi anles dem kova op dem badi? A atenshan dem a luk wen dem “ekspuoz” dem shuolda? Jres kuod laik di wan we wi si uova di duor a di laibri a oul-taim sinting we naav no plies ina tide sosaiyati, an no uman uu rispek demself no supuoz tu a aksep dat widout kwestyan.
Dress Codes (for Women)—A Manifestation of Institutionalized Sexism
Jamaica is a land of ironies. On the surface, we are a sexually liberal people whose hedonistic propensities permit the most explicit displays of (hetero)sexuality. Our women are bold and they speak highly of their self worth, however, just under the surface of what seems to be progressive gender politics, they are marginalized by institutionalized patriarchy, and are largely blind to the discrimination they face in the most mundane of circumstances.
Two summers ago a close friend of mine, wearing a mid-thigh dress with spaghetti straps, was turned away from the Morant Bay Public Library with the security guard accusing her of transgressing the dress code posted prominently above the entrance of the library: ‘No deliberate exposure of intimate body parts or undergarments’. “But my breasts are covered!” she argued. Her bewilderment soon turned to rage as she fought back, “My nipples are covered, aren’t they? Oh yes, I said it, NIPPLES! This is an outrage!”
A closer look at the sign above the entrance revealed a most blatant example of gender discrimination. All the rules stated as necessary to “maintaining the dignity” of the facility regulated the presentation of women. ‘No setters in the hair’; ‘No naked or skimpy tops’; ‘No bikinis/ short shorts, skirts’. Does anyone notice a pattern here? If we must have dress codes, they must be relevant to, and help serve the purpose of the organization. In this case, I am convinced that it serves no purpose beyond restricting the freedoms and common sense of our climate-conscious women while furthering a classist discourse on what is ‘appropriate’ or ‘modest’ dress.
The decision makers at the Jamaica Library Service and other public facilities, comfortably working in air-conditioned offices, must have forgotten that we live in a tropical country, where temperatures consistently hover above 30 degrees centigrade. It is preposterous to qualify spaghetti straps, shorts, skirts, short dresses, and the like, which are typically worn by women, as inappropriate attire. Why we desire to drape our women in styles that hide their skin is beyond me. Are we worried that they will cause a stir by arousing the sexual interests of the male patrons of the library? The perception that we need to protect our women from the male gaze, or regulate their presentation in public, is symptomatic of the misogynistic culture we have created, where women are characterized as attention seeking harlots lest they cover bodies. A strict dress code, such as that prominently displayed at the library’s entrance, affirms and entrenches anachronistic standards that no self-respecting woman should accept unquestioningly.
Tags: Diskriminieshan, Jomieka, Klaasizm, Kolcha, Seksizm