Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Astro Cat]

I need to collect like 99 cats so I can be a forum crazy too.

[attofishpi]

I need to collect like 99 cats so I can be a forum crazy too.

Me n Donnie just had a chat and agreed. > 1 cat ownership is tantamount to crazy.

99 should be restricted to balloons that we can both jump up and down and up and down and up and down...and up etc..and down, although that last bit we both considered there is no choice in the matter...anyway 99 balloons are awesome, 99 cats are shit, literally.

[Astro Cat]

I read today about Helen Hulick, who was a burglary witness in November of 1938. This 30ish Kindergarten teacher had the gall to show up to court in her everyday attire consisting of a top and (gasp) slacks.

The slacks so immensely offended the presiding judge, Arthur S. Guerin, that he denied Hulkick the ability to testify -- insisting that her testimony be rescheduled and ordered her to wear a dress. She said in the L.A. Times (Nov. 10, 1938), "You tell the judge I will stand on my rights. If he orders me to change into a dress, I won't do it. I like slacks. They're comfortable."

So, she showed up in slacks again. The Judge Guerin says, "The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure. Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court...

...The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will be prevented from testifying ... But be prepared to be punished according to law for contempt of court."

Per The Times, she responded: "Listen, I've worn slacks since I was 15. I don't own a dress except a formal. If he wants me to appear in a formal gown that's okay with me. I'll come back in slacks and if he puts me in jail I hope it will help to free women forever of anti-slackism."

And so she did just that, bringing along attorney William Kats. Judge Guerin held her in contempt as promised, sentencing her to five days in jail. (She was forced to wear a denim prisoners' dress there). She was released on her own recognizance and Kats appealed the sentence. Eventually the Appellate Division overturned Guerin's contempt citation, and Hulick got her wish: women are now free in the US of "anti-slackism."

[Walker]

I read today about Helen Hulick ...

Every generation has their slackers.

[Astro Cat]

I read today about Helen Hulick ...

Every generation has their slackers.

I see what you did there ^_^

[Walker]

Why did she want to wear slacks?

Logic says: At fifteen she didn’t want to shave her legs because she thought it was silly, and because she was only fifteen she didn’t fully know herself, but she was catching on. At that age she was still embarrassed when the fashionable girls whispered and giggled at her hairy legs. So, she wore slacks. Bold girls like Katherine Hepburn looked quite smart with a sharp crease and their immense confidence. She then, grew into that.

Does the scientist say: Why wonder without adequate data?

Still seeing it? (Not being a smart ass, but I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[Astro Cat]

Why did she want to wear slacks?

Logic says: At fifteen she didn’t want to shave her legs because she thought it was silly, and because she was only fifteen she didn’t fully know herself, but she was catching on. At that age she was still embarrassed when the fashionable girls whispered and giggled at her hairy legs. So, she wore slacks. Bold girls like Katherine Hepburn looked quite smart with a sharp crease and their immense confidence. She then, grew into that.

Does the scientist say: Why wonder without adequate data?

Still seeing it? (Not being a smart ass, but I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

I thought it was just a joke because she wore slacks and that was the end of that, lol. Wears slacks = slacker

[Walker]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[Belinda]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

[Astro Cat]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

[Belinda]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

I agree Rosa Parks is a case in point. However Rosa Parks had a mighty principle of justice to give her moral authority whereas the other was defying a harmless minor convention .

Unlike the racial question, the gender question is still in transition so in that respect we owe her a debt of gratitude for bringing it once again to our attention. However liberal attitude to gender will be better served with gravitas and minor concessions.

[Walker]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

Her contention was that wearing slacks is formal and only not accepted because she was a woman. I mean, was Rosa Parks "cutting off her nose to spite her face" by refusing to move on the bus? Or are both of these women standing up against oppressive attitudes and laws?

That's how they dress it up to make it sound good. But really, it was hairy legs.

As an aside, because I don't want to interrupt Belinda, but I think since they got that liberation, women got a lot bossier. The thing is, bossy women without juice, be that juice intelligence or some other kind of power, are just comical. If they are in politics, they can be dangerous because of that mentality that says, aww, she's a girl, give her a break. Besides, a woman in this (name the position) is historic.

And, I'm not referencing you. It's just something I've noticed.

[Astro Cat]

I agree Rosa Parks is a case in point. However Rosa Parks had a mighty principle of justice to give her moral authority whereas the other was defying a harmless minor convention .

Unlike the racial question, the gender question is still in transition so in that respect we owe her a debt of gratitude for bringing it once again to our attention. However liberal attitude to gender will be better served with gravitas and minor concessions.

Well, harmless or not, I'm quite happy to be able to wear pants when I want instead of a skirt or dress; and if women like this didn't challenge convention, I wouldn't have that option. I still wouldn't call this "cutting off her nose to spite her face." She stood up for something, and women benefitted.

[Iwannaplato]

That is one of the layers of meaning. The thing is, nothing is "just."

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

For pragmatic reasons she should have dressed formally. Her attitude was 'cutting off her nose to spite her face'.

I wonder if she habitually challenges others to a fight or only does so to powerful others. if the latter then she has my sympathy however she trying to crack a nut too hard for her.

But she was eventually the winner. Maybe she enjoys a spicy struggle. Some people throw bombs to get change. I think she should (have) enjoy(ed) kudos, which does not mean that everyone should do as she did. We all have to decide when to confront ridiculous or harmful authority and when we'd prefer to be, as you say, pragmatic.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree Rosa Parks is a case in point. However Rosa Parks had a mighty principle of justice to give her moral authority whereas the other was defying a harmless minor convention .

But it wasn't a harmless minor convention she was contesting. And it certainly was not viewed that way by the court.. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is, if it was merely a minor convention, then the judge and system needed to be challenged on it. Otherwise they are complacent in enforcing, with some very serious power, something unimportant according to their tastes. If she'd been fined 10 bucks, well. But he put her in jail. People who misuse power like that, even if they have the habits of society partly backing them up need to be checked.