HOME | DD
Just-Wordz — Finding Equality
Published: 2012-08-08 01:17:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 6000; Favourites: 54; Downloads: 27
Redirect to original
Description
Nothing more to addImages:
Lady on right [link]
Lady on left [link]
Related content
Comments: 41
Lets begin with the fact that simply undressing women basically humiliates them.
Less they wear - more they end up objectified. And more attention fixed on their physical appearance instead of their personality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This graphic comes off as pretty black and white. Many women are perfectly content with dressing in the manner as the lady at the left and right, and do so entirely by choice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Isn't this a fun dichotomy?
And yet both can be empowering if you remember that the ability to CHOOSE the clothing you put on your body is an individual matter based on circumstances, your history, and your self-conception.
Fucking annoying people can't remember such a simple thing.
Thank you for sharing this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is still very much a male-dominated world. Want proof? Try this simple test. Pick up a book. Watch a movie or TV show. And count the number of female characters as opposed to male. Unless the book or movie or show is specifically skewed toward a female audience, nine times out of ten you're not going to see a 50/50 split between the sexes (and yes, I am aware that not all situations would present such a division). More often than not, if a female character is present, she's there to fill a certain role, whether it be mother or sister or love interest or token female in a group of men. The rest of the roles tend to default to men. It's a very subtle disparity until you notice it, at which point it becomes not at ALL subtle any longer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
now you mention it, mine old favorite anime(hamtaro) have only 4 main girl characters(Bijou[ribbon-chan], Pashmina[Mafura-chan], Sandy[torahamu-chan], and Penelope[kyuubimaru-chan])
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Writers tend to write about their own personal experience. Books have a large number of male characters because the population of writers is predominantly male.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good point. Which I suppose means that if we want to find equality in representation we need to seek equality in representatives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Truth is, I think both sides are extreme. I am ok with covering hair, but I don't like it when I can't see another woman. I always wonder "What colour are her eyes?", "What does he smile look like?", "What's her face like?" etc. But I also don't like it when women go to the other extreme abd reveal everything. Persoanlly, I concider myself as a 'modest dresser'. Not too much, not too little. I don't care if it makes me look sexy or sweet, I just want it to look good on me and not make me look like an idiot. and the most important thing of alll, that it makes me comfrotable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
honestly its still a males world. men (and i mean the corrupt ones in power not the suckers taught this shit) have to find some way to opress women . so with dress .you can dress however you want ..but now will just make you a sex object instead of a sinful animal. i think its found in the irony that in most pagan religions ive seen theres a woman goddess and women in power just as much as men in the main three men are in power and women are sinful creatures to the point where the bible A.takes mary out as a disciple even though she was (davinci's code anyone?) B. and they change it where peter saw jesus first instead of mary ..its bullshit -__-
and ironically pagans seem less sexist
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Males do not intentionally oppress women, at least not in the West. If they supposedly do, it is because they are fighting for an entirely seperate ideal that people tend to shift into that spectrum.
2. Jesus had many disciples in the Bible that weren't specifically mentioned. In fact, he actually had thousands. The disciples mentioned were the twelve (with the exception of Judas) that stayed until the end. They do in fact include Mary as a follower of Jesus. The reason why they don't call her a disciple is because she did not go out into the world and preach.
I will admit that some Protestants have put Mary down. But the Catholics consider Mary to be one of the holiest saints, greater to all but Jesus and the angels. In fact there are Catholic organizations that are devoted entirely to Marian studies.
3. Mary went to the tomb and it was empty. She saw the angel who proclaimed that Jesus had risen. She did not see Jesus. Jesus went to Peter first because Peter had been a loyal follower and he would the "the rock" on which the Church's foundation would be laid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. im not saying they do im just saying that as soon as women gain the freedom to dress the way they do some says well you have to be sexy or an ex boyfriend of mine , very liberal , and yet he still had this fixed mindset of women this way and i still wouldnt stay with a women who x,y,and z, soceity as a whole makes us think that. i mean look at disney? harmless? maybe in content but the first thing we see as girls are hour glass looking women and the only time (until recently ) their are non pretty women there bad guys ( excluding maleficent)
2.i honestly dont know about Catholics however the accounts are changes between the books weither it was mary or peter and in that time a woman's word wasnt worth as much as a males.granted, it could because the writer saw peter first but still thats sketchy and for Christians at the very least most of the rules are applied to females not males.
though i could be wrong, thats just the way i see it and sadly because of these insane rules on females males actually suffer too(not being able to wear certain colors, cry, wear tight clothing , be treated for rape..etc). its sad
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. For the record, men have just as many expectations thrown at them as women.
2. Where did you hear that there are many rules which apply to women and not men in Christianity?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
!. i said that about the men not being able to do such things or getting taking seriously for getting rape thats why i say gender roles and sexist hurt both sexes
2. no, i mean the rules apply to both however there alot more forgivable with men. and experience ,listen to pastors, other Christians etc.not to say that its the cause of all sexism (oh trust me no religion or person or group can claim all that) it just seems like Christianity has a lot of cases but so do Muslim and judism so
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Fair enough.
My problem, though, is the people who reject certain roles even when they are purely natural. Motherhood is a relevant one now. If a mother and father both insist that they will have to work, no one will be at home to take care of the child. They can both work, I'm not saying that they can't. I'm just saying that one of them will have to stay home long enough to fulfill their role as a parent. And somebody out there is going to have to become a parent.
2. How is it more forgiveable with men? God is willing to forgive all people of their sins. The only limiting factor is the person's willingness to be forgiven. Gender has nothing to do with that.
How does Catholicism promote sexism?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My mother worked and so did my dad it worked out fine.mother hood is only a problem because people expect wives to stop working or having a life to take care of a child and that is not healthy.
2."god" I hope does not based on gender however the religion christianty and catholicism have been known for sexism. (And there's a verse about women being silent in. Church which gives them no say in anything so yeah)with that said,there are examples of strong (for the time period) women but the religion seems to have a hard time following this
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Both of my parents work as well. Again, that's not the problem. The problem occurs when both parents are so dedicated to work that they neglect their children. This may not happen to everyone, but it is indeed happening, and childhood depression rates have skyrocketed as a result.
Motherhood is not a problem. It is a natural role that is necessary not only for the function of society but for the survival of the species as a whole.
2. Saying "they are known for sexism" does not give an example of how they are sexist. That's about as valid as claiming that all Republicans are racists because they are "known for that."
Julian of Norwich, Joan of Ark, Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of Jesus, Saint Theresa... Where does the Church ignore and not accept prominent women within the faith?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1.yes but as i said the problem is also that they expect to the woman or actually parents just to give up their dreams to the child which isnt health for child or parent. the problem people(well normal people ) have with motherhood is that people seem to think that ALL women must want children or ALL women want to be a wife or they are "Radical" at least thats what it seems to be
2.with calthoicism i dont know as i said never been allowed to study it (though i plan to im curious about it )however "christian'(fake ) values have been used to deny women rights I.E. the right to vote, the right to be in the military,the right to be in a high postion of power in certian churches, to get it were their rapist can see the child ,etc. as i said there are plenty of examples of strong (for the time) women, however if you ask (at least in this country or maybe more radical ones) christians what a woman should be male and female will more than like answer quiet and submissive and modest by that person standards. granted this attitude is changing but its there . and you could say the republican part is racist just like you could say in the past the democratic party was racist because of there actions(democrats-suppressing black votes and republicans now a days selling this subliminal message of the black man (women) being angry or scary or living off the system) )with that said church influence has been abused for years so it really couldnt be surprising that the bible or other holy books have been corrupted to be sexist. i mean theres a whole radical setcion of Christianity that blames women for eves mistakes and thinks there less and sinful because of that same way the greeks did with the story of pandora's box
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Who says that a woman has to give up her dreams to be a mother? It's perfectly feasible to be a working mother.
But even if it weren't, a woman who has become a mother has to realize that her first and foremost responsibility is to take care of her child. Her job is second-place to the living being that is in her control.
A woman has a choice whether or not she becomes a mother; but once she makes that decision, she has to stay true to it.
Subnote: Many feminist movements are in fact radical. Very few of them are actually true to the cause that the original feminist movement was all about: equal opportunity for all human beings.
2. A person who uses the Bible for evil intentions is technically not, by definition, a Christian. Christianity, unlike other religions, is defined not so much by belief than it is by a person's relationship with God and with others (although belief IS in fact a crucial element of faith, and therefore trust and love.) Twisting God's words with the intent of harm or malice is a meditated crime against God and His people. If the person feels no remorse for what they did, their relationship is severed and the person loses their connection with God. In denying God the person therefore denies themself as a Christian. The person can only renew their relationship with God if they recognize their fault, proclaim their sorrow and ask for God's forgiveness.
My point is that "Christians" who use the Bible to condone, say, slavery and rape, are not truly Christians and should not be attributed to the Christian body as a whole.
3. I don't know about the "quiet" part. But I do see several people, a minority, who want women to be submissive to men.
I for one think this is a culmination of personal ambition rather than religious teaching. But I'm in no place to defend or define what other people believe. Catholics, at least, speak against such inequality.
Should a women by modest? I think so. What's the catch? I think that men should be modest too. A little bit of overall modesty really couldn't hurt.
4. with that said church influence has been abused for years so it really couldnt be surprising that the bible or other holy books have been corrupted to be sexist.
Common claim, but not founded very well. The original texts, or at least very close renditions, still exist. And the Dead Sea Scrolls are there to back them up.
The problem is not the text. The problem is the preaching.
And in terms of "abusing church influence:"
That is exactly why church should be separated from state. It is not only for secular purposes: when religious leaders take on legislative and judicial duties they tend to corrupt themselves and their communities.
5. i mean theres a whole radical setcion of Christianity that blames women for eves mistakes and thinks there less and sinful because of that same way the greeks did with the story of pandora's box
It's the other way around. They blame Eve for women's mistakes. They also blame Adam for men's mistakes.
The problem with the so-called "radical Christians" is that they, like Luther, believed that Eve, who succumbed to the serpent first, was weaker than Adam and therefore was cursed by God and made submissive to Adam.
If one analyzes Genesis they'll note that Adam was not even present when Eve was tempted by Satan. So the "Eve was cursed first" argument doesn't hold much ground; Adam was not there to be tempted.
And God made man and woman with the intent of them uniting to become one body. The woman is just as important as the man in this union, and she plays no less important a role.
The Bible did, of course, assign men and women specific societal and religious roles. But the Bible did NOT, contrary to what many used to believe, state that a man's role was any more significant than a woman's role. Without the women, the society would cease to function.
A seminarian once told me this: "If the priests and bishops are the arms and legs of our church, then surely the women and Sisters are the heart of it."
Many of those old societal roles were specific only to ancient Israel; nonetheless, it is still important to recognize that women and men are not the same. There is more to distinguish between a man and a woman than just their body. A Woman, though not all, has the role of child-bearing and mothering, whereas a man does not. A man, likewise with exceptions, has the role of performing pastoral duties and fathering, whereas a woman does not.
It's important, however, to recognize that we should not make distinctions that do not actually exist. There is not a difference in ability, importance, intellectual strength or emotional fortitude. Men and women are of the same body. They feel the same emotions and think with the same type of brain. They were put on this earth for the same purpose and they have the same expectations to live up to.
The only differences between men and women are familial and religious, nothing more. (And even these distinctions are relatively small.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Most feminist are not radicals just the ones that get the attention however that can be claimed for Christians as well.but with that said I'm not sayin there can't be a working mother however in our society we expect women only to care abou settling down and being a mother Or wife . This is the reason in the us many People excuse the gap in pay and positions for women . If you don't want this or you think women are too objectified your a "radical feminist " to the vast more majority ( or a bitch depending but at least in the us they mean the same)
2. However these people who use the bible to condone rape slavery putting down women gays etc truly think they're doing gods work so they are , unfortunately , can be considered part of Christian culture the same way skinheads must be considered part of punk culture or the kkk part of the democratic party's culture . We must accept these bad parts to make the culture better
3.modest yes however modesty most often times in that context means cutting off a women sexuality and or beauty completely. Example: how when a women sleeps with say 4 guys she's "loose" but if a guy does it he scores . This same concept applies to drinking or clothing and contributes to this cultures victim blaming . Got raped at a party? Well a good woman would not have been there . A short skirt? Dress modestly and it wouldn't have happened. And again this effect is damaging to men as well to be fair but in different ways .
4. I do agree with the radical part and the text being old Jewish customs but the problem is preachers mos often then not would not agree with the message that the preacher is Preaching because most bible scholars realize that some of the bible ( mostly the old testament ) has more to do with cultural laws not actuall "sins" however until preachers learn this there will always be that sigma of twisting the bible.
5. Other than biological and whatever religion ur apart of customs there really isn't a difference as u say , the rest is socialization . However , until society as a whole recognizes this there will always be this question of whose more oppressed ? The one in the slut dress or the full covering
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly. And no matter what we wear in countries that are supposedly free, we are viewed under some stereotype or other. In countries that allow it, women should wear whatever we're individually comfortable with wearing and none of this "You wear a hijab/niqab/chador/burqa; you must therefore be freed!" bullshit from people who delude themselves into believing that any type of clothing or lack of clothing somehow frees women.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's sad is that both are (at least indirectly) told how to dress by men, and they have unreasonable pressures regarding physical appearance. Women all over the world face similar problems. The one on the left has it better, that she at least has the choice to not follow social pressures in most aspects of life, while the right one often has no choice.
Now this is where my father would do his "Well, in some parts of the world..." crap. My response is that women in one part of the world having disgustingly strict rules to adhere to and almost no rights does not mean that there are no problems with the other women's society. She still isn't equal when she has every right to be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly things are far worse in religiously and culturally 'conservative' countries but that doesn't mean things are perfect or even right here in the west either. Its sort of like when we see suffering, war and starvation abroad on the news we forget the problems that still exist within our own societies (homophobia, racism, homelessness, drug addiction, alcoholism, obesity and manu others).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Neither of them sound good =m= Equality is truly a tough thing to get.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good job, and almost all are true and most of the time, this is a deep thinking an honest statements, and I liked the idea of sending it as a message.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kind of reminds me of this political cartoon: [link]
Both are examples of cruel patriarchal cultures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah thats a great cartoon, sort of sums it all up. Both women see the other as 'oppressed' or living in a male dominated culture but are oblivious to the short comings within their own culture in regards to the equality of women.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's a very good point. But it also brings up the question of what "equality means."
It's very interesting to me how "equality" changes meaning when we apply it to different issues. "Equality" in terms of civil rights and racism often has a very different meaning than "equality" in the spectrum of women's rights. It's almost as though the civil rights movement has adhered to the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr. while the feminist movement has been snowballing towards the frightful ideals of Malcolm X.
I support women' rights. But I also question what that means. The face of feminism has changed drastically over the last century. And I'm sad to say that's it's developed a very dark side.
There are two views when it comes to equality. The first view is based on the ideals of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. This belief is one of joyful coexistence. It's a belief that the primary cause of inequality in our society is misunderstanding. It's a belief that we can bring about a joyful state of equality by opening the eyes of the people to help them understand. It's a dream that men will one day come to understand women and see them as equals. It's a dream that men will be happy to do so. It's a dream that men and women will be able to walk side-by-side peacefully and lovingly and learn to understand each other as if there was no difference between the two of them but their body.
The other view of equality is based on the policies of Malcolm X. This belief is one of liberation. It's an assertion that women are unhappy, and men are the cause. It's an assertion that men are arrogant, unsympathetic and oppressive and need to be humbled. The only way for narrow-minded men to recognize the equality of women is for the women to fight for that equality, for them to show men what women are made of and force them to have some respect. It's an assertion that equality will only be possible if women can come together and overcome the obstacle of male-dominance. The equality will be an equality of power and ability for women to make their own choices without men getting in the way.
Feminism HAS been going down the Malcolm X approach. And although things might not be so radical that women are saying, "Should a man touch you, send him to the cemetery," there are definitely significant amounts of women who look down on men and see them as oppressors instead of as equals.
Consider the issue of abortion. (I am not going to argue pro-life or pro-choice, so don't bring it up.) So many women today argue that men should have absolutely no say in the issue because they don't understand what pregnancy is like. They say that men who oppose abortion are oppressors and haters of women.
Some people have even gone on to argue that the woman's choice regarding abortion should completely negate the feelings of the father. They say that the father is just a "seed-giver" and doesn't have to deal with the "burden" of pregnancy.
They also fight to not be seen as "baby factories." (As if men call them that in the first place.)
But this is so unbelievably counterproductive. Is this what equality is supposed to be about? Reducing men to nothing more than "heartless, hateful seed-givers who could never hope to understand the struggle of women?" How exactly are we supposed to fight for equality by pushing false stereotypes and slamming other people down?
If we argue that men have "no hope of understanding what women go through," we automatically take a Malcolm X approach to equality. Do you really, honestly think that men who oppose abortion are completely insensitive to the difficulty of pregnancy? Do you really, honestly believe that these men "hate" women and want them to suffer?
They care about women. They care about the family. It's not women that their against. It's abortion.
Let's consider the argument that men don't understand pregnancy and should therefore have no say in abortion.
Perhaps they won't get pregnant. Perhaps they don't fully understand what it's like. But if we use the argument that men don't understand pregnancy because they haven't been pregnant, couldn't we just as easily argue that women who have never been mothers should be excluded from the debate as well? After all, they haven't experienced pregnancies and therefore they don't understand the struggle either. Why should we assume that all women understand the "struggle" of pregnancy simply because they are women?
And why should we assume that men have no compassion towards pregnant women and are incapable of understanding them? How is that any different than Malcolm X's belief that white men will never understand black men? Malcolm X wanted black men to separate themselves from the white man so that the white man could stop telling them what to do and they could handle their issues themselves.
Is that a valid approach today? Should we separate the blacks from the whites, the Mexicans from the Asians, simply because they haven't grown up in the same social conditions and therefore "can't understand each other's struggle?" Should we say that whites can't make laws for black people?
Sure, men might never be able to experience pregnancy. But that doesn't mean that they should be completely excluded from all decisions and discussions regarding it. Since when are people's opinions dismissed simply because of the gender they were born as? Isn't that what feminism fights against in the first place?
And who are we to reduce men to nothing more than "seed-givers?" You're honestly telling me that they're aren't loving, caring fathers out there who not only worry about the state of the mother but of their child as well? Can we even kid ourselves to think that it's "equal" to exclude fathers from the discussion of abortion?
Sure, it might be the woman's body. But it's also the father's child. Can you even imagine the pain that a father might feel to see his child get taken from him forever, without the chance of ever knowing him, with the knowledge that there was absolutely nothing he could have done to save him? We have to take a DRUG to convince ourselves that the woman's choice is the only one that matters. She might not want to experience the burden of pregnancy. That's fine. But to say that a father has absolutely no right to decide whether his child lives or dies is absurd and cruel.
Again, I'm not arguing pro-life or pro-choice. I'm simply pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that treating men as if they don't matter is counterproductive to the cause of feminism and is downright stupid. It's not equal if men don't have a say.
Feminism has gone from a fight for equality to a fight for separatism and female dominance. It's no longer about the dreams of men and women standing side by side in peace. No. It's about the pitiful ideologies of women "overcoming" men and demanding the right to make their own decisions free from the influence of men. We remove the barriers and stereotypes on women by placing barriers and stereotypes on men.
People are people. They are equal. Period. We all share the same basic human nature.
The world is not run by the philosophies of Malcolm X. It's time that we remember what feminism was actually about in the first place.
Feminism is a fight for equality. For ALL. It's the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had of his young, black daughter walking to school with a young, white boy holding hands, smiling and singing songs. It's about giving men and women the opportunity to see each other as equals and live by each other's side in happiness.
It's NOT about women liberating themselves from the influence of man.
I support women's rights. But we should all take care to remember what that means.
Instead of pointing fingers and screaming about who oppresses who, we should come together as peaceful equals and discuss, TOGETHER, what is best for the future of our society.
Yes, women are equal to men, they are beautiful and have their own values, and as such they should be treated by men with respect.
But feminists have to realize that it goes the other way around too.
Men are equal to women. Men are beautiful and are unique in their own way. And because men are equal, beautiful and unique, women should treat them with respect.
*****
On a slightly separate note, there are some things I would like to point out about the role of women in regards to history.
Yes, undoubtedly, women from the Middle East are forced into this role by men.
But what about the Western women?
The whole "short skirt sex symbol" idea came up in the '20s when women became flappers to protest the middle-class morality imposed on them that they believe confined women and didn't allow for very much freedom. (Note, however, that they believed these morals to be imposed on them by society, not by men.)
Women constantly fought for "sexual liberation." The problem now is that women have fought so hard for it that they have put that image upon themselves.
Certainly, it is not only woman that is to blame. Pimp culture, which is undoubtedly run by men, treats women as objects of sexual satisfaction that are good for "one-time use" and then can be disposed like a razor. Men have contributed to this culture by their excessive use of pornography.
But this image has been strengthened by the support that many women now give to pornography and sexual liberation. So many guys say, "Staring at women's bodies and watching porn isn't degrading to women. Women do it too."
The point is that EVERYONE is to blame. If women don't want to become sex symbols, they should stop putting so much emphasis on women who have sex for pleasure but don't want to start a family. At the same time, men should stop treating women like objects and should understand that committing to a relationship and a family is important.
What I just said is probably very controversial, and doubtless I'll probably get a lot of angry comments about it. But if you really take the time to think about it you'll know that it's true.
---
Finally, I should point out that it's not just women being held to a certain, unfair standard in society. It's men too.
Men grow up with an image of "masculinity." If they join the gymnastics team they're unmanly and gay. If they show their emotions in public they are pathetic, weak, and overly-dependent. If they try to be loving to their friends they are girly and over-emotional. If they've never had sex or kissed a girl they're a loser.
Men have to fight against the image of masculinity just as much as women have to fight against the image of femininity. Who's to blame for these images?
In large part men. They set up this idea of the strong man, the noble warrior, the "guy in control," the dude with the nice body. Men push for it so much that they are in large part to blame.
But just like with femininity, women are to blame as well. When people ask girls what they want in a guy, the response is often the typical masculine stereotype. Girls but a lot of pressure on guys to be that masculine figure.
---
As I have said before, feminism is about equality. If we are going to fight for this equality, we are going to have to recognize that we are both at fault. We will need to attack the heart of the problem instead of masking the symptoms. We will need to abolish the stereotypes, not add new ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I find myself agreeing with a lot that you have to say and reminded of a story, a true story, as it so happens.
In the 90s, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, a group of Russian feminists were invited to New York City to meet with a group of American feminists. The American feminists were of the 'newer' mode you describe, militant and angry and separatist. The Russians were of the earlier mode; they were thankful to be able to explore their freedom and revel in a newfound ability to express themselves.
Needless to say, the convention was awkward, as the two sides found little in common.
Another related story comes from a book I have about linguistics. A Japanese woman told her American friend how she had gone out one day, looked at houses, bought one, called the movers, had their things all moved into the new house, and left a note for her husband with their new address. The American woman was shocked that she hadn't talked to her husband at all about buying a new house. The Japanese woman was shocked that her 'liberated' American friend would have to ask her husband about something that in her culture had always fallen under the role of the woman of the house.
The point is, yes, men and women are different. But gender is only one aspect of an individual, and it's often difficult to pin down just how gender DOES affect one, since so much of it of what we consider gender differences are really cultural differences, as in the case of the Japanese woman and her American friend. You have to look past stereotypes like shopping and crying and sports and power tools and see people for who they are. That's when you can really start pushing for equality on the basis of individuality.
Yes, we're all different. That's GOOD. Life would be damn dull if we were all the same. Some people are smarter or faster or stronger or more charismatic or more mechanically-inclined, AS INDVIDUALS. I try to celebrate the differences AND similarities in people and recognize the difference between cultural traits or expectations and others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well said.
I feel like the feminist movement has been trying to do away with those "cultural differences" that you mentioned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it depends on what you mean by the feminist movement. My wife is a feminist. Her mother is a feminist. And so am I.
Part of the problem is coverage. The 'feminists' the media most likes to cover now are the radicals, the ones who ARE lashing out, who produce things like the book Backlash. Why? They're loud and controversial. But I don't think they represent the bulk of feminists, and I think a great many women who ARE feminists no longer identify themselves as such due to the hijacking of the label. It is high time the term was reclaimed from the radical fringe and the frothing media both. The way I see it, true feminism is humanist; the desire for all people to be treated equally and be given the same fair chance based on their abilities, not on some incidental factor such as race, gender, religion, culture, sexual orientation, or any of the numerous other traits that in most cases have nothing to do with suitability for a position.
Footnote - I do say most because sometimes these traits DO matter. A catholic school will be run by catholics, a journal for an ethnic or linguistic group is going to largely staff and feature people from that group, so on. The point is, use your common sense, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have to say that this is a very well written piece of commentary and I largely agree with it. The only thing that I can add is that we are the products of our circumstances and experiences, the 'Malcom X' style feminists may have been the ones that experienced the worse sorts of sexism and inequality pushing them to the extremes. The same can be said of 'Martin Luther King Jr' feminists who may not have experienced any sort of sexism or inequality but are against the idea of it in a purely intellectual sort of way.
But other than that I agree with you, especially about this culture of masculinity and femininity that is being pushed onto both men and women. I think equality will be reached when both men and women are able to freely express themselves as who they are rather than what they are (in terms of gender), and they will be judged solely based upon their actions and characteristics rather than what they happen to have between their legs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The only thing that I can add is that we are the products of our circumstances and experiences, the 'Malcom X' style feminists may have been the ones that experienced the worse sorts of sexism and inequality pushing them to the extremes. The same can be said of 'Martin Luther King Jr' feminists who may not have experienced any sort of sexism or inequality but are against the idea of it in a purely intellectual sort of way.
I agree with that to an extent.
Certainly and undeniably having very poor experiences with men will contribute to hateful feelings towards them.
But at the same time it doesn't guarantee it.
Many of Martin Luther King Jr.'s protesters faced worse violence and racism than the followers of Malcolm X.
The true issue, one that people often forget, goes back to the basic fundamentals of human nature.
Humans are naturally loving and caring. That's why, as studies will prove, the greatest happiness comes from serving others.
If we acknowledge the goodness of humanity and come to love it, it will be much easier to forgive, even when horrible things are done to us. Why? Because we know that even the "worst" people can turn around and become good, because that goodness is part of our very nature.
It's something that very many people forget or explicitly deny nowadays, and it's quite sad.
Forgiveness is the key to healing, not aggression.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is spot on, showing that no matter how you dress, women are still not treated equally in either culture (yet ironically, they both claim they give women equal rights)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This does a pretty good job of illustrating some of the issues going on. Also does a good job of illustrating the fact that burqa or no burqa, women are still not viewed as equals in either culture. The expression and details of that less-than-equal state are different, but the fact remains that we are not considered equals and never have been. Not culturally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Except if the Muslim women dressed as the western woman, she would be stoned to death.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0