The Economist explains: Why are feminists going topless?
Trying to get his attention?
More likely trying to get our attention.
And it sort of worked.
We're talking about this protest, while there may have been dozens of others that nobody noticed.
Also, she is a bit of an exhibitionist.
You can websearch the photos from her Paris show.
Yes, attention seeking and self-indulgence, only justified by the sick idea that norms of dress and conduct are evil social constructs. They believe that they should be able to walk down the street naked without consequence or responsibility.
Let’s just say that this idea lies firmly wedged between the casting couch and Bill Cosby’s and Harvey Weinstein’s sick minds.
Well, they are successful in getting attention. I can sympathize somewhat in their concern for the objectification of women’s bodies: in pornography for sure, but also in advertising. Sex sells, but it doesn’t always sell sexy things. I remember an old newspaper ad for Wolf motor oil. It had a well-endowed woman in hot pants, high boots, and a revealing top, and she had a wolf on a leash. It got my attention, and I still remember it after all these years, but I never bought Wolf motor oil. It just seemed a silly way to advertise that product.
If they hope to go beyond getting publicity for their causes and create a general indifference to public nudity, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. They don’t seem to understand how men are wired. But they also don’t seem to understand that a lot of men value women for reasons outside their physical attributes.