Deuxtete wrote:Imperium Sidhicum wrote:
I don't suppose you are familiar with the concept of Overton window.
It's basically a "window" of what people are willing to accept from policy-makers, based on the currently existing social norms, conventions and legal framework. Politicians who make laws have to take that into consideration before making any policy or law.
Now, personally these politicians might not care in the least whether they adopt a law allowing people to go stark naked, or a law requiring people to wear fully-enclosed hazmat suits under criminal penalty. They are simply doing whatever the hell it takes to keep their ratings high and themselves in power. However, in order to do that, they must consider first what the majority of their subjects is willing to accept before making a law or policy. Laws that straddle the boundary of acceptable breed resentment, resentment breeds unrest and disorder, and disorder is bad for business.
For the time being, the prevalent social norms oppose female toplesness, which is reflected into existing laws, formed in accord with the standards of public decency inherited from an earlier time. There exists a certain minority of malcontents who regard these norms and laws to be discriminatory and outdated. However, the vast majority still either opposes the issue outright, or at least doesn't see anything wrong with the existing standards. It is this opinion of the majority that defines the window of acceptability within which the authorities can effect any changes without social repercussions.
Now, the authorities can certainly ignore the bounds of the Overton window and effect a law in order to appease a disgruntled minority of radicals, the direct cost of changing a minor law being sufficiently small as you pointed out. However, that would breed resentment in a much larger segment of the population, in this case, the more conservative populace and those who feel there are more important issues that need government attention. A discontent population is a fertile ground for seeds of radicalism and extremism to take root in. There could emerge extremists from all sides - religious conservatives who would sow further discontent, decrying the decline of moral standards and condemning the government for promoting indecent behaviour and moral decadence, angry taxpayers upset about politicians paid by their money legislating titty exposure while society is struggling with unemployment, high taxation, rising crime rates and whatnot, and also extremist ultra-liberals and feminists who'd claim that legalizing toplesness isn't enough and would demand even more radical changes, having a legal precedent for their claims. The potential for trouble brought about by such seemingly tiny and harmless change of law, and the expenses of containing all this potential fuss are simply too high to be worth the bother.
In order to change a law without upsetting social stability, the authorities must hence instead work on changing social perceptions of what is right and proper, change the social norms themselves rather than merely effect a new law. Joseph Overton described the gradual stages of this process along with his window theory, and effecting a new social norm by law is merely the last stage in a chain of multiple others, implemented when social standards of the majority have already changed.
---
What you and other like-minded folks are suggesting here is ham-handedly changing a law on a whim while ignoring the window of social acceptability. Politicians, whose livelihoods depend on the degree public is willing to tolerate their legislation, can ill-afford to effect a change simply because some people say an existing law is "wrong" or "unjust".
Basically, it's just not how social engineering works, so don't be surprised and disappointed about politicians not perceiving this issue as something of a national importance or their inaction about it.
I was not familiar with "Overton window"
"Those like me" are middle aged conservative evangelical Christian parents. Who happen to believe in the rule of law, and the American principle of equality under the law. Any other position besides equal treatment under the law is anti-American, and should be rebuked, violently if need be.
Breasts are not going to destroy the moral fabric of our society. Additionally moral behavior only matters if it chosen, not imposed, so "those like me" advocate changing morality standards by changing minds, not criminalizing women should they do something that is perfectly acceptable for men to do.
Mob rules is not an excuse for unequal treatment under law.
Finally the idea this would "radicalize" people is patently stupid.
You'll be surprised to what extremes people can take even lesser things than that.
---
My argument is not really about whether women should be formally allowed to expose their rack or not. Personally I'm in fact inclined to agree with your viewpoint about it.
What I am arguing about is that simply legalizing something will not necessarily make it socially acceptable. As I described above, the current position of the Overton window in American society does not allow for such a change, and changing that position for a seamless legal transition to be viable might take decades. Where you might argue that it is un-American to deny complete legal equality to women because of legally-enshrined social convention, others might argue that it is un-American for authorities to revoke that law because of a small minority of malcontents without consulting the general public.
The best that could be managed for the time being is letting the state legislatures decide, but certainly not on a federal level. The indirect costs associated with such a transition in the face of widespread social opposition are simply too high, especially for a nation as large as the United States, to justify the effort. Considering how there are also far more important challenges to gender equality in the States than laws against toplesness, it's also hardly a priority for the authorities to manipulate the public opinion for.
Ordinary people like ourselves can, of course, argue about how things should be, but politicians who call the shots ultimately must deal in how things really are, here and now, not some ideal world with liberty and justice for all, especially in a society where politicians are as dependent on public opinion as in the States.
