Equality — the long struggle

A Utah woman reportedly faces criminal charges for being topless in her own home.

She and her husband were installing insulation in their garage, when itching from the insulation caused them to remove their outer clothing.

The man’s children entered the garage, finding their dad and their step-mother shirtless from the waist up.

The kid’s mother, who wasn’t there, was alarmed and reported the incident to the Division of Child and Family Services, who added that to an ongoing investigation regarding the children’s father.

Some months later, police filed charges against the stepmom for three counts of lewdness involving a child.

The Utah statute regarding lewdness involving a child prohibits the exposure of “the female breast below the top of the areola,” either in public or “in a private place under circumstances the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor or the child.”

I’m not a lawyer, but if I read the statute correctly, she had to knowingly expose herself with the intent of arousing her self and/or her step-kids, who apparently walked in on the pair unexpectedly?

According to court papers, the woman reportedly stripped down in front of her stepchildren after making a statement about how if her husband could take off his shirt, then a woman should be able to go shirtless as well.

But wait, there’s more. The city deputy attorney also alleges that while “under the influence of alcohol,” the woman had told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if he showed her his penis.

Whether that’s factual or not, is it West Valley, Utah’s position that teasing your spouse in front of your kids, in the privacy of your own home is a criminal offense in Utah?

The couple’s lawyer contends that she is being prosecuted because she is a woman. The state now seeks to “condemn her as a child sex offender for engaging in the exact same non-sexual conduct as her lawfully faultless husband.” She faces jail and being registered as a sex offender, for doing what her husband did lawfully, by going topless in in their garage.

In 2019, the 10th US Circuit Court ruled that women are allowed to bare their breasts in public. West Valley, Utah prosecutors say the court’s ruling does not override Utah’s state ordinance.

Casual nudity isn’t something new. Prudish legislation which discriminates against women for something men do all the time isn’t new either.

The Greeks maintained that men are “weak,” and women had “power” over them because of their sexual attractiveness.

Blaming women for men’s own biological urges has been a pretty nifty justification for patriarchy, for the last two thousand years?

In the middle ages in Europe, god decided that he was offended by women whose heads weren’t covered in church, so church leaders mandated women wearing head coverings. Also, women couldn’t touch the Eucharist when they took communion, so they were required to wear gloves, to avoid defiling the “body of Christ.” Of course, male “sexism” hadn’t been identified as a thing then?

Insert your list of customary and legal male advantaged disparities against women here. Don’t forget modern western business attire, which still mandates high heels and bare shoulders in most workplaces. And the hundreds of millions of hours women spend doing hair and makeup, before venturing out in public? To conform to society’s idealized version of what an attractive female should look like? But I digress.

When Jefferson penned “all men are created equal” did he forget someone? Technically no, because women and slaves then were legal “chattel.” Fortunately, the law is finally yielding to the idea that sex isn’t a reasonable justification for disparate treatment.

I applaud the US Supreme Court (including the Robert’s court) for expanding individual rights over the past 70 years. First, for reversing the horrible Dred Scott decision, which denied Scott his freedom as a human being.

Through the civil rights era which affirmed minority rights, to the recent expansion of marriage rights to include every American’s constitutional right to marry the person they chose.

The next big decision before SCOTUS will determine the rights of non-citizens versus the constitutional authority of the president to limit immigration by ending DACA. The decision may hinge on whether Trump lawfully terminated the program.

Congress could remedy the dilemma for Dreamers by passing immigration legislation, but hasn’t because of Mitch McConnell’s intransigence?

Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

It bends a bit more sharply with the advent of social media. Which enables women to network globally for women’s equality at home and in the workplace. Which eventually, will relegate the burka to the dustbin of history?

Equality requires mutual respect and cooperation, in the workplace and domestically.