Victoria Bateman takes on the "Cult of Female Modesty"

She convincingly excoriates the cult, and that explains why male and female naturists alike need to deal with it.

Part 1

My review of Naked Feminism: Breaking the Cult of Female Modesty - by Victoria Bateman.

The review is also on Goodreads: here.

This book will provoke controversy, both pro and con. That's to be expected from Victoria Bateman, whose opinions are strong - and manifested by her public persona. Bateman is unquestionably a feminist - but her opinions may trigger as much disagreement as support from other feminists. In short. she argues that the contemporary feminist emphasis on body modesty is an oppressive burden on women - and has usually been so for most of recorded history.

To quote from the jacket of the hardcover book, "Bateman makes a compelling case for women's bodily freedom and explains why the current puritanical revival is so dangerous for women. She takes us on a journey, illustrating the swinging pendulum of bodily modesty through the ages."

Bateman describes the situation as a "cult of female modesty". By that she means the fact that while men can - in suitable contexts - expose almost their entire bodies, women are socialized to think that exposing "too much" of their bodies in the same contexts contravenes their "appropriate" public image, and even their personal safety. Although pragmatically there are reasons for this, it is unjust and restricts women's bodily freedom in comparison to that of men. For example, in most places, it's perfectly normal for men - if they wish - to expose their entire upper bodies in their homes, around swimming pools, on beaches, or while working outdoors when the temperature is high. But doing likewise is considered unacceptable for women almost everywhere.

Of course, most women don't object to this situation - because they've been socialized to accept it as perfectly normal. Moreover, they see this limitation on their freedom as simply in their best interest. Bateman strongly disagrees with this situation. She considers it - presently - to be merely a continuation of an unjust, anti-female way of thinking, albeit one that's persisted through most of recorded history. To emphasize her disagreement, she characterizes the situation as a cult - i.e. a twisted belief system - one that is discriminatory to women, even though it's hardly ever questioned.

There are some ironies in this situation. In fact, at least in modern Western societies, it's quite normal for women to expose certain areas of their bodies - in ways that are rather less common for men. This is especially apparent, for example, in work environments or more "formal" situations. Women have more freedom to wear clothes, such as dresses or tops that expose most of their shoulders, are sleeveless, and/or have a low neckline. Women may wear dresses, skirts, or shorts that don’t cover most of their legs from above the knees on down. Footwear that exposes some or most of their feet is fairly normal. When at home, out shopping, or in other informal contexts women can expose even more. But for men to expose as much would often be "unusual". Men’s "shorts" that extend below the knees are now common.

Unsurprisingly, women (and men) who are "celebrities" can get away with intentionally exposing even more skin in public. The only exceptions are anything that’s illegal (and sometimes not even then). The problem here is that what's considered "acceptable" in a particular context is very different for women and men - whereas acceptability should depend only on personal preference - not gender.

However, there's more to the situation. Although women seemingly have the freedom to expose more skin (except in very formal contexts), the fact is that women who expose "too much" risk more than social disapproval. The risks extend from unwanted and undesirable attention or sexual harassment to rape or even worse physical harm. This is a serious social problem. So women face risks - and therefore less freedom - to dress in a way that pleases them - while men don’t have similar risks. That's because "modesty" (by some definitions) is necessary for women in most situations. In “formal” circumstances, such as business offices, there are often stricter expectations about ways of dressing that apply to both women and men - but that’s a special case.

Victoria Bateman understands all of this, of course. Her main point is that "modesty" - as it pertains to clothing - is a vague concept, can extend unreasonably far, and unfairly constrains women's legitimate personal freedom. This is why she calls female modesty a "cult". And it’s hardly a small one, since most women in contemporary Western society seem to adhere to the cult’s strictures.

Bateman is not some weirdo flake. As a fellow in economics at the prestigious University of Cambridge, she’s a person of demonstrated substance. But as noted on the book jacket, she's "also known for using her [naked] body in art and protest, including to challenge the assumptions and stigma surrounding women's bodies." For example, in the lead-up to the misbegotten (but successful although soon widely regretted) policy of "Brexit", she was often photographed with anti-Brexit protest slogans on her fully nude body.

Economics is Bateman's expertise, but the book demonstrates she's done extensive research and is quite knowledgeable about the history and sociology of the "cult of female modesty". The first three chapters detail the history, dangers, and causes of the modesty cult. The fourth chapter is a passionate argument to "beware puritanical feminism". The concluding chapter summarises how "modern-day feminists seem to believe that nudity and intellectual prowess are somehow incompatible". She recommends a 3-step process for feminists: (1) Self-reflection, (2) Reforming feminism, (3) Embrace 'my body, my choice'.

Part 2

Obviously, the “Cult of Female Modesty” has a great deal to do with the fact that female participation in naturism has declined significantly over the past several decades - since 1990, if not earlier.

U.S. Naturists who are currently active can’t help noticing there are very few women in almost any type of naturist activity - visits to naturist parks and resorts, membership in non-landed clubs, visits to clothing-optional beaches, outdoor experiences (camping, hiking), WNBR events, etc. Knowing even approximate numbers is impossible, but the overall male-female ratio in naturism may be around 90:10 - and that may be optimistic. Of course, the numbers will vary a lot from place to place. There will be some instances where the ratio is much more even, perhaps 60:40. When naturism was doing best in the U.S. - circa 1975 - the ratio was probably also around 60:40.

In other countries, like Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and New Zealand, the ratios are surely not so lopsided, although I can’t make a good guess. However, in countries like those, naturism and social nudity are considerably more respectable. So such nonsexual nudity is more common than in the U.S. For example, a group of friends may visit a clothing-optional beach or gather for dinner at someone’s home, and there’s no concern over how much or how little anyone is wearing. Also, nudity is usually expected in mixed-gender saunas and bathhouses.

That overall higher popularity alone should produce better male-female ratios. Still, even in those countries the female modesty cult clearly has had an effect. For example, fewer women go topfree or fully naked at clothing-optional beaches in those countries than did so in the recent past. The following discussion, however, is limited to naturism in the U.S.

I think the female modesty cult is almost certainly one - perhaps the most - important reason the male-female ratio in U.S. naturism is now 90:10 (or worse). Naturism arrived in the U.S. around 1930 - a little later than in England and France. At first, it was mainly a male thing, but before long, naturist camps had sprung up around the country. Since these camps were private and secretive, couples and whole families could safely participate together. So the male-female ratio was close to even.

The first public U.S. nude beach didn’t appear until 1958 - in California - and slowly others did elsewhere. Besides the few established (and closeted) early nudists, some young people began to engage playfully with nudity on a few college campuses. And by the time of Woodstock in 1969 and the “hippies”, nudity had become a “thing”, albeit only in a small segment of the population. So the male-female ratio of participants was fairly close to even. But social trends tend to wax and wane, as younger generations react against the choices (especially the fads) of their elders.

Bateman criticizes how traditional strictures around women’s choice of attire (what she terms the “female modesty cult”) curtail individual women’s ability to decide for themselves when and how they should clothe (or not clothe) their bodies. And historically the restrictions on the choices women can make are stronger than what’s required of men. That naturally limits the willingness of women to participate in naturism and social nudity.

Feminism plays a role in this, because its mandate is - legitimately - to promote the autonomy, safety, and well-being of women against the behavior of some men. But it can veer into cult territory when it excessively restricts women’s ability to decide for themselves when, where, and how much of their bodies they feel obliged to cover.

Bateman considers herself a strong feminist, and rightly so. But she dissents from certain aspects of feminism, namely those that dictate women’s choices in clothing - including the possible absence of it.

So let’s take a closer look at feminism. During the 19th century, U.S. feminism grew at least since the Women’s suffrage movement. “Suffrage” means the right to vote - which wasn’t achieved for all U.S. women until 1920. (Isn’t it amazing that women were no more entitled to vote than dogs and cats?) The roots of the movement go back to the 1840s. Yet women still face other kinds of discrimination based on gender. The Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibited gender-based discrimination, was first proposed in 1932. Unfortunately, it very narrowly missed adoption, mainly due to opposition from U.S. conservatives.

So women in “modern times” have been struggling for equal rights with men for many years. Students learn in high school about women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who were active around 1870. But few learn about another woman, Victoria Woodhull, who ran for president in 1872. She was technically ineligible because she was too young by only a few months. However, as a woman, she certainly would have lost anyhow. In contrast to Western Europe, the U.S. still hasn’t selected a woman as chief executive. (Although there’s a good possibility this year.) Woodhull was slightly more successful as an activist for women's rights and labor reforms. Her efforts didn’t go unnoticed, since she became known as “Notorious Victoria”, mainly because she advocated “free love”. But she strongly advocated for women’s rights in general, not just sexual freedom.

So Victoria Bateman is very much in the same tradition, only now the issues include uncomfortable staring, body shaming, sexual harassment, and fears of rape. Women may regard an obligation of “modesty” as necessary to lessen the vulnerability to such unwelcome behavior from men. Women want equality with men in how they choose to cover (or not cover) their bodies even in situations where direct threats are unlikely - in naturist places, for example, since naturists try to prevent misbehavior.

Feminism has raised consciousness among women of how some men (certainly not all) pay far too much attention to women’s choices of how much of their bodies they decide to cover - from most of their bodies to (in the case of naturism) not at all. So this is very relevant to naturism, because there’s a tension between it and the feminist “cult of female modesty”. That tension definitely exists - but it shouldn’t.

Too many non-naturist men are disrespectful of women in a spectrum of ways that range from excessive staring to salacious comments, unwanted touching, sexual harassment, and (ultimately) attempted/completed rape. Is it any wonder that feminists can see female modesty as a partial (albeit insufficient) defense? The situation is quite understandably a deterrent to women’s participation in naturism.

There’s a common meme among some women that illustrates the situation. Many women enjoy outdoor activities like hiking and camping. Some of them prefer to engage in such activities solo, unaccompanied by others, either male or female - because that maximizes their freedom over when and where they go. The question is whether an adventurous woman on her own would be more afraid of encountering a bear - or a man. There’s been a lively online discussion of this issue, known as the “Man or Bear” debate. The article “A Woman Who Left Society to Live with Bears Weighs in on ‘Man or Bear’” provides a fine commentary on this question.

The issue is essentially the same as whether a woman would feel comfortable being naked at a naturist resort, a clothing-optional beach, or in some other naturist activity - whether alone or even with a friend/partner.

Naturists know that naturist parks and resorts are very safe places for both men and women to enjoy their own nudity. These places provide various safeguards, such as:

• Permission of everyone in view must be obtained before making photos or videos.

• Covering of cell phone lenses may be required.

• No degree of sexual harassment is acceptable - and anyone guilty of such should be quickly reported.

• Staff members are generally alert to signs of misbehavior.

• Background checks are usually required of first-time visitors.

• Anyone with a known history of intimidating behavior (in the current location or elsewhere) will probably be denied admission.

• The physical property is likely to be enclosed by fences or natural barriers.

Experienced naturists understand the need for all these precautions. However, most women (and many men) without naturist experience are probably unaware of just how safe most naturist resorts and parks are. So they’re likely to be nervous about getting naked if they visit - or choose not to visit at all. Then too, some places represent themselves as naturist but lack adequate safeguards.

Clothing-optional beaches, swimming holes, and the like used by naturists may be more problematical. Both women and men should exercise caution in unfamiliar places:

• People with cell phones or cameras may take pictures from cliffs or other concealed locations.

• There are likely to be people unaware or heedless of standard naturist etiquette who can cause problems.

• Only a few such places have staff that is alert to potential problems.

The safest place for anyone to enjoy being naked is within their own homes and outdoor property (if at least some of it isn’t visible to neighbors or passers-by ). But the “female modesty cult” may still deter women from getting naked at home - even if nobody other than approving family is present. The perceived need to keep at least some of their body covered is just too ingrained. So they’re deterred from taking even the first steps to enjoying their naked bodies. If they can’t take that step, how will they ever become interested in actual naturism?

Although I don’t know whether Victoria Bateman participates actively in naturism, she certainly has no qualms about going fully naked in appropriate circumstances. She’s definitely a staunch feminist also. However, she also decries how most feminists promote excessive modesty by discouraging women from choosing to expose as much of their bodies as they might wish. Why should it be “immodest” and unacceptable for women to leave just as much of their bodies uncovered as much as they want anytime men might? If there’s a double standard, it’s not equality at all.

Correcting this situation should be a high priority for naturists. This female modesty cult is a significant deterrent to participation by women in naturism. The consequence of not decrying the cult is probably the main factor in the 90:10 male-female imbalance in all forms of naturist activity. Think of it this way: if the ratio were much closer to 50:50 there would be almost twice as many participants in any sort of naturist activity. Indeed, there probably would be far more than twice as many. That’s simply because people of both genders typically enjoy socializing when one gender or the other doesn’t predominate (exceptions being things of a strong male or female nature). When approximate gender balance can be expected, additional couples and individuals of both genders will take more interest in naturism.

So the imbalance is a huge problem for naturist beaches, clubs, and resorts. It hurts the clubs and resorts because they don’t have enough visitors to cover their expenses - so they eventually have to go textile or close entirely. And clothing-optional beaches seriously risk losing that status, since if there are too few naturists using the beach or designated parts of it, why should any part of it be clothing-optional?

These days women are closer to equality with men for success in technological, financial, and political careers than ever. But they’re still unable to wear as little as men can in public swimming pools, beaches, and their own backyards without fears of shaming, harassment, or the risk of arrest. Victoria Bateman’s explanation of the female modesty cult shows why that discrimination exists