Letter from a man, not an animal

Dear Women,

In an opinion piece from the Sept. 1 issue of this newspaper, a contributor wrote a letter to women that, in summary, described what a woman had to do to gain his respect, and not be "treated like an object." I write this letter to reassure you that "A Letter to Women" is based off of traditional, and thankfully dying chauvinistic view of women.

I first want to make clear that many, if not most, men aren't slaves to their sexuality. We do not live in Victorian times, where shaped table legs allegedly had their own curtains so as not to excite virile young men, and where the term 'drumstick' was invented (since a man taking a 'leg' of chicken might be driven into a sexual frenzy).

I find myself perfectly capable of watching a skilled ballet performance that includes women in leotards, and am able to fully appreciate the artistry and beauty of the dance. I can view Veronica Lake in films and see her intense and emotional acting without dwelling on her sometimes short and tight apparel. And when you speak freely about complex science I can only dream of understanding, or you walking me through basic integration for the 12th time as a tutor? I somehow don't seem to notice the length of your skirt.

Sarcasm aside, as a man, I find it insulting to hear men generalized as sexual beasts ("You make men into animals..."). I'm certain there are many who would agree with me.

"A Letter to Women's" contributor wrote that when women wear revealing clothing, "you have stripped yourself of everything that made you beautiful." I find this line particularly difficult to understand.

How could your clothing change your pretty smile, your eyes, your wit, those jokes that always make me laugh? It seems that this contributor wants society to return to a time when "a woman's chastity used to be her attractiveness."

I think the rest of us are OK with here and now.

The contributor who wrote "A Letter to Women" wants women to change for men. This is an absurd request. Trying to 'civilize' women when they are often more civilized than us is not "The Man's Burden."

When I think of truly gentlemanly behavior, a basic tenet is to not discriminate with regard to whom you are chivalrous.

Since when should a lady's actions have to 'demand' chivalry? In fact, Wikipedia summarizes chivalry's "Duties to Women" as a "general gentleness and graciousness towards all women."

I don't need you to put on a sweater for me to take you seriously; I don't need you to change for me to respect you. I might even lose respect for you if you even consider changing yourself to please others.

The more I read "A Letter to Women," the more troubling I find certain conclusions made in it. When the contributor writes that "...the less you wear, the more of an object you become...," I can only think of those justifications made for the sexual harassment and assault of women.

Objectifying women is how some make it sound OK to abuse them. "You should've seen the way she was dressed; she was asking for it!"

Shifting the blame toward the victims is by no means a new tactic, and it is never a right one. Similar to how Civil Rights-era police abuse were allegedly because of blacks being 'uppity,' crimes against women are somehow attributable to them acting and dressing 'slutty.'

This troubling attitude has rightfully led many women to organize an international protest movement against it, known as 'SlutWalk,' because even a law enforcement officer thought that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized."

Women, judging by those of you who I've talked to about "A Letter to Women," many of you are angered by it. In a sense, I'm writing this response to do damage control. Many, if not most, men of the modern era have moved beyond this state of mind.