Opinion: Equality more than a passing argument

What’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple? Depends on whom you ask.

A doctor might talk about mammary glands, an artist might talk about the curve of the female form and Springfield Councilman Justin Burnett might call one publicly obscene.

A lot has been said recently in our community about nipples following a pair of Park Central Square rallies advocating the Free the Nipple movement, which seeks public nipple equality for women. There has been talk of freeing them, talk of covering them up and talk of what’s appropriate for our children and in our businesses.

While the first rally led to more gawkers with camera phones than protestors, it succeeded in opening a dialogue in Springfield. A Sept. 4 Springfield News-Leader editorial estimated the city spent 146 hours so far talking about breasts following Burnett’s proposal to change the city’s obscenity law to cover the lower portion of a woman’s breast.

Current law requires coverage of only the nipple, meaning strategically placed Band-Aids do the trick. The editorial concluded the city has more important business to address, such as poverty and domestic violence.

However, it left me wondering – what is Burnett supposed to do? The tools of a councilman to effect change are proposed ordinances. Burnett, and from what he says, a majority of his district, feel strongly about this subject. Is it a waste of time? Maybe, but it’s within his rights to fight it, just as much as it is within protestors’ rights to stand on the square baring all.

I’m reminded of a quote from a favorite movie, “American President,” in which the president says, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.”

I don’t want to free my nipples, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have the right to.

Following the Aug. 7 rally, I was downtown when a bare-chested protestor walked in RSVPaint and headed up to the bar. Everyone stopped painting. Whispers echoed through the room. Husbands averted their eyes. People pulled out their smartphones. It was a shock, but it shouldn’t have been.

The Free the Nipple movement has opened a national dialogue on the over-sexualization and objectification of women, on perpetuating a rape culture and a clearer picture of what true female equality would mean.

According to FreeTheNipple.com, 80 years ago it was illegal in America for men to be shirtless on a beach. A group fought the status quo, and men won the right to be topless in 1936. Today, there are 37 states that still arrest women for this same freedom.

However, I have to ask: How many women would really feel empowered walking around topless on the street? Or in a local business? Seems to me it would be kind of chilly.

When was the last time you saw a shirtless man in public except for in a swim setting? Long ago, business owners took a stance on shirtless men with the familiar sign: “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” It may be a woman’s right to go topless, but it doesn’t amount to discrimination if she’s asked to leave an establishment.

Equality is a noble cause, but it shouldn’t trump common sense. Free the Nipple has brought about a public conversation, but let’s not waste our collective efforts fighting for something this trivial. As presidential candidates continue to demean women on a national stage, it takes a louder voice to bring equality to the forefront of the conversation.

I’d like to make sure we are talking about more than nipples.

Springfield Business Journal Features Editor Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.