A debate speech.
Good evening ladies, gentlemen, members of the proposition, opposition, timekeeper and chairperson. My name is Fadilah and I will be speaking tonight to oppose the motion ‘This House Would Free the Nipple’.
Noble and progressive though the arguments in favour may seem, there are many, many flaws to be found within the movement and the ideology behind it.
Performative Feminism
Across the world, the plight of women is severe and brutal. Women are murdered every day simply for being women, being denied opportunities in the workplace, are harassed, abused and violated verbally, physically and emotionally. Women around the world are denied the right to education, women are subject to genital mutilation and human trafficking.
The response to this systemic brutality? Go topless.
It cannot be highlighted enough what a flimsy, performative response this is to the very real issues facing women across the world. It is often argued by advocates of the proposing side that the act itself is meant to garner controversy which can be used to draw attention to the bigger issues.
This is extremely poorly placed because we live in a world where the feminist movement and women’s rights activism is trying so hard to be taken seriously, where the patriarchal and misogynist audience still views the female body as inferior and sexual property.
In this framework, what is the place for such a movement? There is none.
It is unreasonable and naïve to expect the intended nobility to be appreciated in advocating bare breasts. One needs to look no further than a public comments section of a topless female activist to prove my point correct. Will we see men professing their awakening to the plight of women? Will we see remarks on the causes the woman believes in? Unlikely. We will see lewd, perverse, degrading, violent and abusive remarks all relating to the woman’s physical appearance. What are free nipples really giving a platform to?
And what will these bare breasts achieve? Will women suddenly start receiving equal pay because employers are moved by the sight of topless protest? Or will this convince society to change its attitudes towards the female body, creating a scenario in which a man will think twice before harassing a woman? As well-meaning as this campaign may be, it can not be disguised under the flag of productive activism, nor genuine revolution.
Can it even be seen as body positive? Will the same support be given to plus-size women freeing the nipple? Will the standards be held in place for already over-sexualised and fetishized women of colour? And what about observant religious women already fighting societies which demand them to show more skin? Women whose experiences of womanhood and personal values are not represented by this childish and reductionist argument for ‘female empowerment’.
May I be so bold as to ask that this campaign be called by its name: white Western feminism, liberalism and individualism converging to create a narcissistic and exclusive movement that feeds into pre-existing negative notions of the female body. Activist exhibitionism if you will.
Broken application of feminism
What are we telling young women, once again?
That in campaigning, you should constantly weaponise your femininity? It is as if to say to the patriarchy, ‘I agree, I am no more than my body, now look at it and give me what I want’.
That the focus should constantly be on the physical, your body, your perceived sexuality?
Again, imagine a young girl who already knows she will not have the same privileges as a topless thin, white woman. Maybe because of her relationship with her body and how society sees it. Maybe because of her personal boundaries and values. Maybe we don’t even need to have more maybes. Will this young girl feel empowered? Is this a positive expectation to put on girls’ bodies? Such women and such ‘activism’ do not represent everyone, and the messages being sent to young girls by this movement are highly questionable and exclusive.
I cannot highlight enough the irony and double standards this is for the feminist movement.
If women insist on competing with men, if women demand to have their voices heard, it can not be in a way that can be perceived as degrading and feeding into the male narrative. If a man can argue for his rights fully clothed, so should a woman. It is bizarre how the thought would never cross a man’s mind to utilise his perceived sexuality in order to get what he wants in any public space.
And if we argue, ‘well, women are being ignored every other way, so we need attention!’ that in itself shows the gap we should be trying to fill in more appropriate ways. We should be focusing on educating women, allowing them to compete, allowing them to flourish and prosper in all the same ways and with all the same respect that a man can. THEN we can focus on de-sexualising the female body. In fact, by then, the job will be done for us! When the patriarchy is challenged on its own terms: economically, academically, professionally, then it will begin to view women as agents beyond their bodies.
Again, I look at the Free the Nipple movement, and I wonder where there is space for someone like me: someone who does not want to bear skin, someone who places my strength and value in the content of my character and intellect and not the physical, someone whose personal activism is through challenging conceptions of what and how a woman should be, someone who regrets the commodification, the publication and degradation of the female body in the name of supposed equality, awareness and activism.
The movement is simply wrong: it misplaces priorities, it lacks representation and inclusion of people groups and interests, and undermines so much of what women’s empowerment has been striving to achieve for so long, instead bringing the focus back on the female body in a world that is not ready to appreciate it beyond sexuality.
I believe this movement is flawed at its core and neither relevant nor productive in our society. I ask you to oppose this motion.
I don’t think this argument fully reflects the depth and extent of my personal beliefs on the subject matter, but other essays of mine do in sha Allah. This speech served the purpose of this debate quite fine. A bonus is that the opposition won and the motion was defeated, so I would like to believe that I contributed somewhat to this victory.
