Today is Equal Pay Day in the United States. The day exists to raise awareness of the pay gap that exists between men and women; in the United States, women are paid, on average, 79 cents to every dollar a man earns.
You'd think that this would be an uncontroversial day and one that only employers who skimp on pay would whine about but no, in every online discussion I saw about the day, the trolls were out, attempting to deny the existence of the pay gap. While the act of paying women less than men is misogyny in itself, people denying it exists shows how far misogyny is ingrained in a large amount of the population.
It sheds further light on why achieving full gender equality is a gargantuan task.
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 April 2017
Monday, 4 April 2016
Use of demographic groups as insults
In the past two days, some online trolls, in the context of a discussion, referred to me as a "pretty girl" and "transgender". Okay, some jerks showed off their immaturity by resorting to childish name calling to try to win. Yep, but the name calling is not the issue here.
No, my problem is the use of "pretty girl" and "transgender" as insults. By doing this, the trolls were demeaning women and transpeople and insinuating that falling into one or both of those categories is shameful. The goal of the trolls was to try to trivialise me by comparing me to demographic groups that they perceived to be weaker than men.
The trolls failed in their goal, of course, as I don't consider women and transpeople to be weaker than me. Instead, the trolls only exposed their hatred for people who aren't like them (the trolls were men). Educating them on their ignorance wasn't possible, as they refused to listen to any reason.
Don't use demographic groups as insults. Actually, I'll go one step further: don't resort to insults as a method of winning an argument. In the end, if people disagree with you and your response is to demean others, you'll be the one viewed in a negative light by society.
--------------------
Note: This article was initially incorrectly titled as "Use demographic groups as insults"; this has been rectified.
No, my problem is the use of "pretty girl" and "transgender" as insults. By doing this, the trolls were demeaning women and transpeople and insinuating that falling into one or both of those categories is shameful. The goal of the trolls was to try to trivialise me by comparing me to demographic groups that they perceived to be weaker than men.
The trolls failed in their goal, of course, as I don't consider women and transpeople to be weaker than me. Instead, the trolls only exposed their hatred for people who aren't like them (the trolls were men). Educating them on their ignorance wasn't possible, as they refused to listen to any reason.
Don't use demographic groups as insults. Actually, I'll go one step further: don't resort to insults as a method of winning an argument. In the end, if people disagree with you and your response is to demean others, you'll be the one viewed in a negative light by society.
--------------------
Note: This article was initially incorrectly titled as "Use demographic groups as insults"; this has been rectified.
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
International Women's Day 2016
For International Women's Day 2016, I'd like to share this interesting piece from The Huffington Post:
In a nutshell, the women interviewed in the article are asked questions that men often received in interviews. Many women despair at being asked about their clothes or looks whereas men are often asked about their interests and/or background. I think it's a worthwhile read.
In a nutshell, the women interviewed in the article are asked questions that men often received in interviews. Many women despair at being asked about their clothes or looks whereas men are often asked about their interests and/or background. I think it's a worthwhile read.
Sunday, 8 March 2015
International Women's Day 2015
These are my thoughts for my 2015 post on International Women's Day:
"At first, I was concerned when I started seeing International Women's Day being used as a greeting (i.e. introducing it with the word "happy", like when people say "Happy International Talk like a Pirate Day"). I thought this type of recognition was trivialising this day and its significance.
I thought about it some more and while I still hold those concerns to a degree, at the same time, spreading knowledge about the day is a positive action, provided that the meaning and message behind it is not lost. Plus, increasing equality is something to be happy about."
I don't want International Women's Day to become reduced to a mere greeting unless, of course, that only happens when women are truly equal and there's zero danger of society backsliding into past treatments of women. Sadly, that day is still a long way off.
"At first, I was concerned when I started seeing International Women's Day being used as a greeting (i.e. introducing it with the word "happy", like when people say "Happy International Talk like a Pirate Day"). I thought this type of recognition was trivialising this day and its significance.
I thought about it some more and while I still hold those concerns to a degree, at the same time, spreading knowledge about the day is a positive action, provided that the meaning and message behind it is not lost. Plus, increasing equality is something to be happy about."
I don't want International Women's Day to become reduced to a mere greeting unless, of course, that only happens when women are truly equal and there's zero danger of society backsliding into past treatments of women. Sadly, that day is still a long way off.
Friday, 17 October 2014
London and test
Yesterday's visit to London was awesome. I went with two friends to the Imperial War Museum and then walked to the Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) and the London Eye area. I shall post some pictures of the day soon.
As for today, my class' first English test occurred. We had to write a radio script on a topic about which we held strong opinions and the script had to contain around 700 words or more. My radio script was a pro-feminism piece and featured over 900 words. Not only do I hope that my handwriting and quality of work were sufficient, I hope that the examiner who reads my work won't be someone who is anti-feminist!
Still, it's best to think positively. My friends and I poured an incredible amount of energy into our respective pieces and we are all trying to aim high.
As for today, my class' first English test occurred. We had to write a radio script on a topic about which we held strong opinions and the script had to contain around 700 words or more. My radio script was a pro-feminism piece and featured over 900 words. Not only do I hope that my handwriting and quality of work were sufficient, I hope that the examiner who reads my work won't be someone who is anti-feminist!
Still, it's best to think positively. My friends and I poured an incredible amount of energy into our respective pieces and we are all trying to aim high.
Thursday, 17 April 2014
Women and big phones
In a few written and video reviews for large phones that I've read/watched, some reviewers have said that larger devices (usually those with a 4.5 inch screen or bigger) are unsuitable for women due to women having smaller hands than men. While my father, my Hong Kong uncle (he has a Sony Xperia Z Ultra, which is huge!) and I all have phones with a 4.8 inch screen or bigger, in my personal observations, I've noticed far more women with big phones than men with said devices.
Both here in Northamptonshire and in Nottingham, for example, the only people I've seen carry phones from the Galaxy Note series, known as "phablets", have been women; I think I might have seen one man with one, but I wasn't (and am still not) sure. For all the other large phones that are available, I've observed far more women than men carrying them. It should be noted that many women carry bags, so big phones can be stored in those when the need arises. By contrast, men usually only have pockets; a large phone in a jeans pocket would make walking uncomfortable.
Again, these are my observations only; what I've noticed to be true in Northamptonshire and Nottingham might not be the same elsewhere, but regardless, I think the belief that women can't handle large phones is nothing more than sexist nonsense. Phone size comes down to personal preference, not gender: my East of England uncle and my grandfather - who are obviously men - have both stated that large phones are too big for them, and neither of them has small hands. At the same time, one of my female cousins has said that she loves big phones.
Both here in Northamptonshire and in Nottingham, for example, the only people I've seen carry phones from the Galaxy Note series, known as "phablets", have been women; I think I might have seen one man with one, but I wasn't (and am still not) sure. For all the other large phones that are available, I've observed far more women than men carrying them. It should be noted that many women carry bags, so big phones can be stored in those when the need arises. By contrast, men usually only have pockets; a large phone in a jeans pocket would make walking uncomfortable.
Again, these are my observations only; what I've noticed to be true in Northamptonshire and Nottingham might not be the same elsewhere, but regardless, I think the belief that women can't handle large phones is nothing more than sexist nonsense. Phone size comes down to personal preference, not gender: my East of England uncle and my grandfather - who are obviously men - have both stated that large phones are too big for them, and neither of them has small hands. At the same time, one of my female cousins has said that she loves big phones.
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Tonie Nathan
This morning, I learnt that on March 20th, 2014, Tonie Nathan died. Nathan was the first woman and first Jewish person to win an electoral vote in a presidential election in the United States.
In the 1972 election, Nathan was the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, which was a new party at the time, serving as the running mate to John Hospers. The party was only on the ballot in two states, Colorado and Washington, but a Republican elector in Virginia chose to vote for Hospers and Nathan instead of Richard Nixon, thus making Nathan the first woman to win an electoral vote; Nathan's being of Jewish faith also made her the first Jew to win an electoral vote (in 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was of Jewish origin and he won electoral votes, but he was an Episcopalian).
The result of the election was not affected by the faithless elector; while Richard Nixon lost an electoral vote in Virginia, he still won the rest of that state's votes (11 out of 12) and secured 49 of the 50 states overall, giving him a landslide victory. It should also be noted that the 1972 election is, to date, the late time a person who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican won an electoral vote, although there have been faithless electors since then.
Nathan's achievement came more than ten years before Geraldine Ferraro won electoral votes as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. While it will most definitely be a day to celebrate how far women have come when the United States does elect a woman president, Nathan will be almost completely forgotten to anyone who isn't familiar with US presidential elections and the non-major party candidates. She's already a footnote, given that most people haven't heard of her; as I wrote earlier, I only learnt about her today.
With Nathan's death, all six people who received electoral votes in the 1972 election - plus Roger MacBride, the faithless elector - are now deceased.
In the 1972 election, Nathan was the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, which was a new party at the time, serving as the running mate to John Hospers. The party was only on the ballot in two states, Colorado and Washington, but a Republican elector in Virginia chose to vote for Hospers and Nathan instead of Richard Nixon, thus making Nathan the first woman to win an electoral vote; Nathan's being of Jewish faith also made her the first Jew to win an electoral vote (in 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was of Jewish origin and he won electoral votes, but he was an Episcopalian).
The result of the election was not affected by the faithless elector; while Richard Nixon lost an electoral vote in Virginia, he still won the rest of that state's votes (11 out of 12) and secured 49 of the 50 states overall, giving him a landslide victory. It should also be noted that the 1972 election is, to date, the late time a person who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican won an electoral vote, although there have been faithless electors since then.
Nathan's achievement came more than ten years before Geraldine Ferraro won electoral votes as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. While it will most definitely be a day to celebrate how far women have come when the United States does elect a woman president, Nathan will be almost completely forgotten to anyone who isn't familiar with US presidential elections and the non-major party candidates. She's already a footnote, given that most people haven't heard of her; as I wrote earlier, I only learnt about her today.
With Nathan's death, all six people who received electoral votes in the 1972 election - plus Roger MacBride, the faithless elector - are now deceased.
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Uneven level of attractiveness
I discovered this article this morning and found it extremely interesting:
It's about a man who won a radio station's "Punching Above Your Weight Champion" award, which he won for being in a relationship where the woman is massively more attractive than the man. Darren Donaghey, the man in said type of relationship, self-nominated for the award after hearing about it on the radio on the way to work one day. The radio station's listeners voted Donaghey and his fiancée, Kate Cathart, as the winners.
While Cathart and Donaghey's relationship is viewed as unusual, it shouldn't be. When I walk around my residence and when I've been to other parts of this country, it's not uncommon for me to see couples where one half is far more attractive than the other...and it's not soley beautiful woman-ugly man relationships, either! I've observed quite a few couples that would cause many people to ask "what's that [insert positive appearance adjective here] man doing with her?" Evidently, the people in these relationships didn't consider looks and money to be determining factors, as with Cathart and Donaghey. In the end, so what if they're both not on the same level of attractiveness? As long as they love each other and are happy, that's all that counts. Nobody's approval is necessary and any offence certain people might take is irrelevant; as the adage goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I like relationships such as Cathart and Donaghey's because they break the social construct that people should be of equal or similar attractiveness to be in a relationship with each other. They also help to disprove the false notion pushed by some men that most women are only interested in a man if he's hot or rich (or both). It gets boring reading comments from men who dismiss all women as gold diggers and dismiss people like Cathart and Donaghey as an anomaly or a distraction.
I also like Cathart and Donaghey's sense of humour. The fact they are able to laugh about themselves and their relationship shows good character on their part. I wish them the best of luck for their marriage.
It's about a man who won a radio station's "Punching Above Your Weight Champion" award, which he won for being in a relationship where the woman is massively more attractive than the man. Darren Donaghey, the man in said type of relationship, self-nominated for the award after hearing about it on the radio on the way to work one day. The radio station's listeners voted Donaghey and his fiancée, Kate Cathart, as the winners.
While Cathart and Donaghey's relationship is viewed as unusual, it shouldn't be. When I walk around my residence and when I've been to other parts of this country, it's not uncommon for me to see couples where one half is far more attractive than the other...and it's not soley beautiful woman-ugly man relationships, either! I've observed quite a few couples that would cause many people to ask "what's that [insert positive appearance adjective here] man doing with her?" Evidently, the people in these relationships didn't consider looks and money to be determining factors, as with Cathart and Donaghey. In the end, so what if they're both not on the same level of attractiveness? As long as they love each other and are happy, that's all that counts. Nobody's approval is necessary and any offence certain people might take is irrelevant; as the adage goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I like relationships such as Cathart and Donaghey's because they break the social construct that people should be of equal or similar attractiveness to be in a relationship with each other. They also help to disprove the false notion pushed by some men that most women are only interested in a man if he's hot or rich (or both). It gets boring reading comments from men who dismiss all women as gold diggers and dismiss people like Cathart and Donaghey as an anomaly or a distraction.
I also like Cathart and Donaghey's sense of humour. The fact they are able to laugh about themselves and their relationship shows good character on their part. I wish them the best of luck for their marriage.
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
About those "Nice Guys"...
Note: this is somewhat of a follow-up to the two posts I wrote rejecting the notion of the "Friend Zone"; see here and here.
Several years ago I read that women don't like nice guys. Back then I did not understand what this meant and I wrongly assumed that much of what I'd been taught and told about being a decent person was false, especially when it came to love, dating and relationships. I was baffled as to why women would be attracted to men who would be disrespectful or outright degrading towards them when people - both men and women - had taught me that women appreciate being treated with respect and politeness. Fortunately, I had misunderstood what "Nice Guy" meant and I'm pleased to say that I have now long since learnt the difference between what constitutes a "Nice Guy" versus a good man. So what is the difference?
Nice Guys are only interested in women for sex, nothing more. They appear to go at great lengths to be nice to women and specifically to women, but their "kindness" is factitious: they often go overboard to the point where their behaviour is creepy and this usually overdone niceness is just an act to manipulate women into having sex with them. A Nice Guy believes that pretending to be nice to a woman is all that's needed to bed her; he doesn't or won't understand why any woman would refuse him. In his mind, he went to all the trouble to treat her like any living and breathing human should be treated and believes that it's only fair that she reward him with sex; she wasn't supposed to be just reciprocally kind to him.
Nice Guys usually aren't interested in committed relationships; to them, women are just sexual vending machines and once the "niceness coins" have been inserted, they expect payout. Most if not all Nice Guys see sex with their target woman as the goal and once that goal has been achieved, they disassociate themselves with her, not wanting to be any more involved beyond satisfying their own selfish needs. Love and genuine caring between two people are almost always alien concepts to Nice Guys, and for them, having a friendship with a woman is a failure because there is no sex involved.
A good man, on the other hand, is kind to women because he understands that treating women respectfully is one of their fundamental rights as human beings. His demeanour is genuine, not at all a ploy just to have sex and he does not consider a friendship with a woman to be a failure. He does not view women as sex objects, nor does he regard all other men as competitors and therefore doesn't constantly overreact with aggression and excess jealousy towards them. A good man places value in relationships and doesn't view sex as the only factor that matters during them. His authenticity does not make him immune from having a broken heart and he will still experience bitterness, but his respect for women prevents him from blaming or hating all women just because one turned him down or hurt him.
Unfortunately, there are men who misunderstand the definition of a Nice Guy and they assume that women desire being degraded and/or only respect men who use their fists. What worries me here is that this misunderstanding might lead to some of these men becoming rude jerks at best or committing violence against women at worst; even during the days when I completely misunderstood what Nice Guy meant, I never believed that deliberately mistreating women was key to being attractive to them, but not all men think as I do. I sincerely hope that no man has ever misunderstood the term in this manner and ended up overreacting as such, but my concern lingers; it's imperative that men and women fully understand what separates Nice Guys from good men.
I should note that sexual desire itself does not transform a good man into a Nice Guy. A good man will still have his own romantic and sexual interests, as nearly all men (and also women) do, but it's not the only thing that's important to him during his interactions with women and he also cares about his girlfriend's/wife's sexual needs, unlike Nice Guys, who only care about their own. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have sex, but no person should ever be exploited or deceived for another person to obtain it.
Without wanting to distract or deflect from this post's main topic, I am sure that there is a female equivalent of Nice Guys (possibly called Nice Girls?); it's also likely that Nice Guys have their equivalents among the LGBT community, but I don't know enough about these counterparts to give an informed opinion about them. If they do exist, I'm sure they receive the same cold reception that Nice Guys do.
At the end of the day, people should be kind to others, men and women alike, because it's what they should do as good humans. I hold the optimistic opinion that, regardless of gender, if someone is a genuinely nice person then their attractive qualities will be noticed and they will quickly find themselves in a relationship, but if they're only nice just to trick others into having sex with them, then their attractive traits will be clouded by that veil of deception.
Several years ago I read that women don't like nice guys. Back then I did not understand what this meant and I wrongly assumed that much of what I'd been taught and told about being a decent person was false, especially when it came to love, dating and relationships. I was baffled as to why women would be attracted to men who would be disrespectful or outright degrading towards them when people - both men and women - had taught me that women appreciate being treated with respect and politeness. Fortunately, I had misunderstood what "Nice Guy" meant and I'm pleased to say that I have now long since learnt the difference between what constitutes a "Nice Guy" versus a good man. So what is the difference?
Nice Guys are only interested in women for sex, nothing more. They appear to go at great lengths to be nice to women and specifically to women, but their "kindness" is factitious: they often go overboard to the point where their behaviour is creepy and this usually overdone niceness is just an act to manipulate women into having sex with them. A Nice Guy believes that pretending to be nice to a woman is all that's needed to bed her; he doesn't or won't understand why any woman would refuse him. In his mind, he went to all the trouble to treat her like any living and breathing human should be treated and believes that it's only fair that she reward him with sex; she wasn't supposed to be just reciprocally kind to him.
Nice Guys usually aren't interested in committed relationships; to them, women are just sexual vending machines and once the "niceness coins" have been inserted, they expect payout. Most if not all Nice Guys see sex with their target woman as the goal and once that goal has been achieved, they disassociate themselves with her, not wanting to be any more involved beyond satisfying their own selfish needs. Love and genuine caring between two people are almost always alien concepts to Nice Guys, and for them, having a friendship with a woman is a failure because there is no sex involved.
A good man, on the other hand, is kind to women because he understands that treating women respectfully is one of their fundamental rights as human beings. His demeanour is genuine, not at all a ploy just to have sex and he does not consider a friendship with a woman to be a failure. He does not view women as sex objects, nor does he regard all other men as competitors and therefore doesn't constantly overreact with aggression and excess jealousy towards them. A good man places value in relationships and doesn't view sex as the only factor that matters during them. His authenticity does not make him immune from having a broken heart and he will still experience bitterness, but his respect for women prevents him from blaming or hating all women just because one turned him down or hurt him.
Unfortunately, there are men who misunderstand the definition of a Nice Guy and they assume that women desire being degraded and/or only respect men who use their fists. What worries me here is that this misunderstanding might lead to some of these men becoming rude jerks at best or committing violence against women at worst; even during the days when I completely misunderstood what Nice Guy meant, I never believed that deliberately mistreating women was key to being attractive to them, but not all men think as I do. I sincerely hope that no man has ever misunderstood the term in this manner and ended up overreacting as such, but my concern lingers; it's imperative that men and women fully understand what separates Nice Guys from good men.
I should note that sexual desire itself does not transform a good man into a Nice Guy. A good man will still have his own romantic and sexual interests, as nearly all men (and also women) do, but it's not the only thing that's important to him during his interactions with women and he also cares about his girlfriend's/wife's sexual needs, unlike Nice Guys, who only care about their own. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have sex, but no person should ever be exploited or deceived for another person to obtain it.
Without wanting to distract or deflect from this post's main topic, I am sure that there is a female equivalent of Nice Guys (possibly called Nice Girls?); it's also likely that Nice Guys have their equivalents among the LGBT community, but I don't know enough about these counterparts to give an informed opinion about them. If they do exist, I'm sure they receive the same cold reception that Nice Guys do.
At the end of the day, people should be kind to others, men and women alike, because it's what they should do as good humans. I hold the optimistic opinion that, regardless of gender, if someone is a genuinely nice person then their attractive qualities will be noticed and they will quickly find themselves in a relationship, but if they're only nice just to trick others into having sex with them, then their attractive traits will be clouded by that veil of deception.
Friday, 14 March 2014
Men buying women's hygiene products
I've read in some feminist forums comments from women expressing frustration about their boyfriends or husbands refusing to buy feminine hygiene products. In those same discussions, I've also read some women say that they wouldn't date or would dump a man who wouldn't buy these items for them. I can understand these women's perspectives, but I have to ask this: just why are the men embarrassed to buy feminine hygiene products? What is their problem?
If a man is worried about being mocked for buying feminine hygiene products, he should view it this way: the mere fact he is buying these items indicates that there is an important woman in his life, who is his romantic partner, and that he is a good man for getting these things for her. He is trusted by her to get her what she needs for her body, for issues that he doesn't have to worry about in regards to his own body.
If a man is worried about being viewed as less masculine for buying them, then first, he's being immature and irrationally sensitive. Second: If people see a man buying such items, the vast majority of them will either think nothing of it or assume that he's a caring man in a loving relationship, not a weak excuse for a "man" who is controlled by his wife. Sure, there will be the occasional jerk who'll mock him, but so what? That person, regardless of gender, isn't mature enough to be in a relationship, whereas the good man is.
If a man is uncaring and disrespectful of a woman's reproductive system and women's issues, and thus regards women's hygiene as something that's beneath him, then he is a sexist and needs to grow up. Preferably sooner rather than later.
Additionally, I would argue that men who purchase pornographic magazines or similar items should feel far, far more embarrassed than men who buy their girlfriends' or wives' hygiene products. A man who buys these is likely to be viewed negatively, as people would assume he thinks that women are objects for his pleasure, rather than his fellow human beings. They also might think that he's the undateable type, hence his reliance on pornography.
I asked Dad his opinion on this topic. He shrugged, saying that he'd bought Mum her feminine products before and felt no shame in doing so. As he said, why would he? It's nothing shameful. He also thought that men who wouldn't buy them, for whatever reason, were insecure and idiots, and he agreed with me that it would be more embarrassing to be buying naughty magazines.
Oh, and one other thing: there's also the possibility that a man buying women's products could be a dad getting them for his teenage (or even adult) daughter, which would make him a great father, not a laughingstock. Honestly, there's nothing here that men need to be embarrassed about.
If a man is worried about being mocked for buying feminine hygiene products, he should view it this way: the mere fact he is buying these items indicates that there is an important woman in his life, who is his romantic partner, and that he is a good man for getting these things for her. He is trusted by her to get her what she needs for her body, for issues that he doesn't have to worry about in regards to his own body.
If a man is worried about being viewed as less masculine for buying them, then first, he's being immature and irrationally sensitive. Second: If people see a man buying such items, the vast majority of them will either think nothing of it or assume that he's a caring man in a loving relationship, not a weak excuse for a "man" who is controlled by his wife. Sure, there will be the occasional jerk who'll mock him, but so what? That person, regardless of gender, isn't mature enough to be in a relationship, whereas the good man is.
If a man is uncaring and disrespectful of a woman's reproductive system and women's issues, and thus regards women's hygiene as something that's beneath him, then he is a sexist and needs to grow up. Preferably sooner rather than later.
Additionally, I would argue that men who purchase pornographic magazines or similar items should feel far, far more embarrassed than men who buy their girlfriends' or wives' hygiene products. A man who buys these is likely to be viewed negatively, as people would assume he thinks that women are objects for his pleasure, rather than his fellow human beings. They also might think that he's the undateable type, hence his reliance on pornography.
I asked Dad his opinion on this topic. He shrugged, saying that he'd bought Mum her feminine products before and felt no shame in doing so. As he said, why would he? It's nothing shameful. He also thought that men who wouldn't buy them, for whatever reason, were insecure and idiots, and he agreed with me that it would be more embarrassing to be buying naughty magazines.
Oh, and one other thing: there's also the possibility that a man buying women's products could be a dad getting them for his teenage (or even adult) daughter, which would make him a great father, not a laughingstock. Honestly, there's nothing here that men need to be embarrassed about.
Saturday, 8 March 2014
International Women's Day 2014
Today is International Women's Day. On most normal days, I usually come across or notice multiple articles about women's issues but surprisingly, I've seen very few of them today. I have, however, seen several people wish "Happy International Women's Day" to others.
This is all very well, but International Women's Day exists to recognise the progress of women's rights and women's achievements, and to raise awareness about women's issues and how we can solve them. While I am glad to see people mention the day and cause others to notice it, I'm not overly keen on randomly greeting people with it, as I feel it trivialises its importance and reduces it to the level of people wishing one another a Happy Halloween.
International Women's Day is also meant to be a celebration of women, but it's not meant to be a day when we say "Yay, women!" and then go back to sleep. There are 364 (sometimes 365) other days of the year in which we have to continue to advance women's rights and stop certain people and groups from reversing all the gains women have made in the past century. Again, I'm glad to see people mention the day and help raise its awareness, but don't leave it at that.
As for me, my family and I had a discussion about International Women's Day at the dinner table this evening. This is significant because it's the first time I can recall us ever talking about it; unfortunately, on past 8ths of March (and other days, sadly) the subject did not come up in conversation, although to be fair, we weren't even aware it existed until about the past three years, so yes, the awareness efforts do need to continue. I'm glad that we talked about it this year.
Regardless, I hope that you have had a Happy International Women's Day and have contributed somehow - even in a tiny manner - to improving women's lives.
This is all very well, but International Women's Day exists to recognise the progress of women's rights and women's achievements, and to raise awareness about women's issues and how we can solve them. While I am glad to see people mention the day and cause others to notice it, I'm not overly keen on randomly greeting people with it, as I feel it trivialises its importance and reduces it to the level of people wishing one another a Happy Halloween.
International Women's Day is also meant to be a celebration of women, but it's not meant to be a day when we say "Yay, women!" and then go back to sleep. There are 364 (sometimes 365) other days of the year in which we have to continue to advance women's rights and stop certain people and groups from reversing all the gains women have made in the past century. Again, I'm glad to see people mention the day and help raise its awareness, but don't leave it at that.
As for me, my family and I had a discussion about International Women's Day at the dinner table this evening. This is significant because it's the first time I can recall us ever talking about it; unfortunately, on past 8ths of March (and other days, sadly) the subject did not come up in conversation, although to be fair, we weren't even aware it existed until about the past three years, so yes, the awareness efforts do need to continue. I'm glad that we talked about it this year.
Regardless, I hope that you have had a Happy International Women's Day and have contributed somehow - even in a tiny manner - to improving women's lives.
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
Photoshopping
Following up on my post about TLC's "Unpretty", which was also about body image issues, I recently saw this video about photoshopping:
It's disappointing that unrealistic expectations of women's looks are still prevalent in today's day and age. Not only do these high expectations put pressure on girls and women to conform to a certain appearance, as shown in the video, but it also indoctrinates men into thinking that women have to look like photoshopped supermodels.
From my point of view, all four women in the video are more attractive in their natural appearances than when they were photoshopped; there's nothing wrong with how any of them look and their supposed "imperfections" are merely parts of who they are. I hope that most men would share my opinion; it would deeply unfortunate for society if most men preferred photoshopped women over how women actually look.
Of course, I don't have any problem whatsoever with women applying make-up to themselves, as a lot of women do it to boost their self-esteem and/or simply because they enjoy doing it, but I wouldn't ever expect a woman to look like a fashion model. No one looks "perfect" and even if they did, it wouldn't be natural.
It's disappointing that unrealistic expectations of women's looks are still prevalent in today's day and age. Not only do these high expectations put pressure on girls and women to conform to a certain appearance, as shown in the video, but it also indoctrinates men into thinking that women have to look like photoshopped supermodels.
From my point of view, all four women in the video are more attractive in their natural appearances than when they were photoshopped; there's nothing wrong with how any of them look and their supposed "imperfections" are merely parts of who they are. I hope that most men would share my opinion; it would deeply unfortunate for society if most men preferred photoshopped women over how women actually look.
Of course, I don't have any problem whatsoever with women applying make-up to themselves, as a lot of women do it to boost their self-esteem and/or simply because they enjoy doing it, but I wouldn't ever expect a woman to look like a fashion model. No one looks "perfect" and even if they did, it wouldn't be natural.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
"Unpretty" - TLC
My friend and fellow blogger Jen wrote a piece about body types/image issues and linked to this song:
It's "Unpretty" by TLC. The lyrics and the music video are critical of the pressures women - especially young women - face in order to have the supposedly "perfect" body. "Unpretty" was released in 1999; what has changed in the (almost) fifteen years since that song? Women and girls are still pressured to conform to a certain look and the problem has even spread, to a certain extent, to men and boys.
I also recommend reading Jen's blog post on this subject; she did a good job and wrote a strong piece. She also covered about how many people are dismissive of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, and why it's bad to prioritise one body type over another.
I also recommend reading Jen's blog post on this subject; she did a good job and wrote a strong piece. She also covered about how many people are dismissive of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, and why it's bad to prioritise one body type over another.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
The friend zone redux
Two months ago, I wrote a piece on why I think the friend zone doesn't exist. I discovered the article Nice Guy Syndrome And The Friend Zone by Alisse Desrosiers; in particular, I agree with and would like to share the following paragraph from her piece, as it mostly sums up what I wrote about in my post:
"The Friend Zone is a bullshit, misogynistic, make-believe land Nice Guys have come up with to demonize women for not wanting to date them. They use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that there are Actual Reasons behind their decision to not pursue a relationship or have sex with this guy. You know, like not being physically attracted to them. Or not being able to connect with them. Or seeing through their crap and realizing that the only reason these guys are even friends with them in the first place is so they can get laid."
Not being attracted to someone and/or not being able to/not wanting to form a romantic connection with them are completely valid reasons for not dating a certain person; it happens to men and it happens to women. There is no "zone".
As for "Nice Guys", I am working on an article about them; I put it aside in favour of my article about the friend zone but I do intend to finish the piece and post it. Finally, I'd like to clarify that while I don't usually include profanity in my blog, I wasn't going to change any of Desrosiers' words when I posted the extract from her article; it would have been insulting to her and it's a fairly trivial concern when compared to the topic.
"The Friend Zone is a bullshit, misogynistic, make-believe land Nice Guys have come up with to demonize women for not wanting to date them. They use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that there are Actual Reasons behind their decision to not pursue a relationship or have sex with this guy. You know, like not being physically attracted to them. Or not being able to connect with them. Or seeing through their crap and realizing that the only reason these guys are even friends with them in the first place is so they can get laid."
Not being attracted to someone and/or not being able to/not wanting to form a romantic connection with them are completely valid reasons for not dating a certain person; it happens to men and it happens to women. There is no "zone".
As for "Nice Guys", I am working on an article about them; I put it aside in favour of my article about the friend zone but I do intend to finish the piece and post it. Finally, I'd like to clarify that while I don't usually include profanity in my blog, I wasn't going to change any of Desrosiers' words when I posted the extract from her article; it would have been insulting to her and it's a fairly trivial concern when compared to the topic.
Monday, 27 May 2013
The "friend zone"
We've all heard that story[1]: a guy meets a woman, they get along, he wants to be more than friends and he asks her out. To his surprise, she says no and he wonders, after being so amazing to her, what he did to be put in her "friend zone", a place where he cannot advance beyond being a friend of hers other than a "good friend", a "great friend" or perhaps, depending on how wonderful a friend he is to her, even "best friend"...but all hope is lost...why bother being friends?
Many men fear the strange yet fearsome friend zone, believing that if one woman puts him there, then word will spread throughout all womankind that this man is an inhabitant of the friend zone and should be avoided at all costs — at least for relationships, anyway. Except...
It's nonsense: the aforementioned hypothetical man never did anything to be put in the woman's "friend zone" because the friend zone does not exist. Why, you ask, do I believe this?
Well, it's because I think that a woman not being attracted to a particular man is no different from a man not being attracted to a particular woman; when a man doesn't have any attraction to a woman, do we usually say that he "friend zoned" her? Almost never, because we know that a man might have several reasons for having no romantic interest in a woman. If a woman simply does not have any romantic feelings for a man then in most circumstances there is little that the man can do about it; he might not meet her physical tastes, his personality might not be one that she would consider relationship material or she thinks they have too different/too similar interests. There wasn't some evil place the woman put him in to taunt him and no woman ever woke up one day thinking, "Hmm...I'm going to add him to my friend zone!".
The friend zone mentality assumes that men must treat every woman as a potential relationship, regardless of her opinions, feelings or even suitability for a relationship; thus, it considers male-female friendships to be wrong and that any man who is "just friends" with a woman is a failure with women. It propagates the myth that a man must make a move on a woman upon or soon after meeting her, otherwise he will become one of her friends and there will be no chance of a relationship; it also dismisses the possibility that a man and a woman can develop a relationship with each other after being friends for months or even years.
Often when a woman says that she doesn't want to advance to a relationship she says it's because she values the friendship; on some occasions, she says this to preserve the man's feelings, but on others she says it because she honestly believes that the friendship is valuable and does not want to ruin it! This is still not placing a man in any sort of friend zone and it isn't usually a vindictive act; either someone is into you or they're not (although, as I said above, sometimes the feelings can change, which is further evidence that there's not some anti-relationship zone you can be placed in to on a whim with no hope of redemption).
I'm still unsure about the origins and intentions of the friend zone. Is it designed to shame women for picking and choosing men when men already do that to women, or is it to instill fear into men that if they don't act in a certain way they will forever be condemned to only being friends with women? Perhaps it's both.
Regardless, I don't think that men should worry about the mythical yet menacing friend zone. There are billions of people in the world and thousands in our neighbourhoods: all because one woman doesn't want a relationship with a particular man doesn't mean that every other woman will share her opinion; women's tastes in men are as diverse as men's tastes in women. I am optimistic; there is someone for everyone.
Even if the friend zone did exist, there is nothing wrong with being someone's friend rather than a potential relationship partner. Besides, a good friend can help you find someone with whom you have a mutual romantic interest!
What is your opinion of the friend zone?
[1] This post covers the heterosexual man perspective, as the term "friend zone" is usually applied to them more than any other group. I have yet to hear it used in the context of gays and lesbians.
Many men fear the strange yet fearsome friend zone, believing that if one woman puts him there, then word will spread throughout all womankind that this man is an inhabitant of the friend zone and should be avoided at all costs — at least for relationships, anyway. Except...
It's nonsense: the aforementioned hypothetical man never did anything to be put in the woman's "friend zone" because the friend zone does not exist. Why, you ask, do I believe this?
Well, it's because I think that a woman not being attracted to a particular man is no different from a man not being attracted to a particular woman; when a man doesn't have any attraction to a woman, do we usually say that he "friend zoned" her? Almost never, because we know that a man might have several reasons for having no romantic interest in a woman. If a woman simply does not have any romantic feelings for a man then in most circumstances there is little that the man can do about it; he might not meet her physical tastes, his personality might not be one that she would consider relationship material or she thinks they have too different/too similar interests. There wasn't some evil place the woman put him in to taunt him and no woman ever woke up one day thinking, "Hmm...I'm going to add him to my friend zone!".
The friend zone mentality assumes that men must treat every woman as a potential relationship, regardless of her opinions, feelings or even suitability for a relationship; thus, it considers male-female friendships to be wrong and that any man who is "just friends" with a woman is a failure with women. It propagates the myth that a man must make a move on a woman upon or soon after meeting her, otherwise he will become one of her friends and there will be no chance of a relationship; it also dismisses the possibility that a man and a woman can develop a relationship with each other after being friends for months or even years.
Often when a woman says that she doesn't want to advance to a relationship she says it's because she values the friendship; on some occasions, she says this to preserve the man's feelings, but on others she says it because she honestly believes that the friendship is valuable and does not want to ruin it! This is still not placing a man in any sort of friend zone and it isn't usually a vindictive act; either someone is into you or they're not (although, as I said above, sometimes the feelings can change, which is further evidence that there's not some anti-relationship zone you can be placed in to on a whim with no hope of redemption).
I'm still unsure about the origins and intentions of the friend zone. Is it designed to shame women for picking and choosing men when men already do that to women, or is it to instill fear into men that if they don't act in a certain way they will forever be condemned to only being friends with women? Perhaps it's both.
Regardless, I don't think that men should worry about the mythical yet menacing friend zone. There are billions of people in the world and thousands in our neighbourhoods: all because one woman doesn't want a relationship with a particular man doesn't mean that every other woman will share her opinion; women's tastes in men are as diverse as men's tastes in women. I am optimistic; there is someone for everyone.
Even if the friend zone did exist, there is nothing wrong with being someone's friend rather than a potential relationship partner. Besides, a good friend can help you find someone with whom you have a mutual romantic interest!
What is your opinion of the friend zone?
[1] This post covers the heterosexual man perspective, as the term "friend zone" is usually applied to them more than any other group. I have yet to hear it used in the context of gays and lesbians.
Friday, 8 March 2013
2013 International Women's Day
With today being International Women's Day, I thought about this question: "If you could fix any one problem women face by clicking your fingers, what would it be?". Would you make women's pay equal to men's? Ensure that a girl's education is the same as a boy's? Stop women in high positions from receiving far more scrutiny and criticism than their male equivalents? Perhaps put an end to violence against women?
There are many problems to choose from, and all need to be addressed, but if I could solve any one of them instantly, it would be violence against women. Worldwide, millions of women are abused and/or killed by their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, uncles and men who have no family or romantic connection to them. There are women who live in permanent fear, worried that the man (or men) they have to live with or near will physically harm them or kill them if they as much as look at him the wrong way. There are girls who have grown up only knowing men to be fist-wielding bullies from the behaviour of their abusive fathers and brothers. It horrifies me to even think about what these girls and women go through, but any discomfort I receive by thinking about it pales in comparison to what the victims feel.
If the harm it causes women wasn't enough, violence against women also hurts men. The vast majority of men would never want to step on a woman's foot by accident, let alone beat or kill her, but thanks to the men who are violent against women, most if not all men are viewed negatively and suspiciously (not just by women, but also by other men) as a consequence. How does a woman know that a man won't go from being friendly and reasonable one moment to a thug the next? In nearly all cases, these fears weren't necessary, but the existence of woman-beating men causes these fears and does justify them on too many occasions. If violence against women ended, women would no longer have to worry when men interact with them and men wouldn't be regarded as a "potential threat until proven otherwise" (this blog post is related).
Obviously, violence and all the other issues women face cannot be solved by clicking one's fingers. Also, just because today is International Women's Day doesn't mean this should be the sole day of the year to think about women's issues while ignoring them for the other 364 days. If, regardless of what day of the year, we all do our part to help women, no matter how small, we can ensure that they will be truly equal and safe.
There are many problems to choose from, and all need to be addressed, but if I could solve any one of them instantly, it would be violence against women. Worldwide, millions of women are abused and/or killed by their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, uncles and men who have no family or romantic connection to them. There are women who live in permanent fear, worried that the man (or men) they have to live with or near will physically harm them or kill them if they as much as look at him the wrong way. There are girls who have grown up only knowing men to be fist-wielding bullies from the behaviour of their abusive fathers and brothers. It horrifies me to even think about what these girls and women go through, but any discomfort I receive by thinking about it pales in comparison to what the victims feel.
If the harm it causes women wasn't enough, violence against women also hurts men. The vast majority of men would never want to step on a woman's foot by accident, let alone beat or kill her, but thanks to the men who are violent against women, most if not all men are viewed negatively and suspiciously (not just by women, but also by other men) as a consequence. How does a woman know that a man won't go from being friendly and reasonable one moment to a thug the next? In nearly all cases, these fears weren't necessary, but the existence of woman-beating men causes these fears and does justify them on too many occasions. If violence against women ended, women would no longer have to worry when men interact with them and men wouldn't be regarded as a "potential threat until proven otherwise" (this blog post is related).
Obviously, violence and all the other issues women face cannot be solved by clicking one's fingers. Also, just because today is International Women's Day doesn't mean this should be the sole day of the year to think about women's issues while ignoring them for the other 364 days. If, regardless of what day of the year, we all do our part to help women, no matter how small, we can ensure that they will be truly equal and safe.
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Tall women redux
This morning, I heard another interesting radio segment: it was about taller women and shorter men, which, of course, I wrote about a couple of days ago.
I didn't catch the whole programme, but the parts I did hear were interesting. There was a guy on it who said that he didn't date women taller than him, and his rationale was the same as the two I railed against in my original post on this subject: he found tall women "intimidating" and they "made him feel less manly". Throughout that part of the programme, I thought "please don't say them, please don't say them!"...and he did. I sighed and facepalmed.
Two other worthwhile parts were when a woman talked about her relationship with a man significantly taller than her...by fourteen inches. Her source of discomfort came from believing that other people would assume they were father and daughter rather than a couple; however, she never mentioned her age or that of her boyfriend. The other part touched upon one of the footnotes in my previous post: a couple of tall women who were interviewed stated that they would not date men who were shorter than them.
I didn't learn anything particularly different from what I already knew; what I found more surprising was hearing a man use the rationales I regarded as sexist so soon after I made my argument. However, considering that I felt it necessary to write about this the other day, I shouldn't have been surprised.
I didn't catch the whole programme, but the parts I did hear were interesting. There was a guy on it who said that he didn't date women taller than him, and his rationale was the same as the two I railed against in my original post on this subject: he found tall women "intimidating" and they "made him feel less manly". Throughout that part of the programme, I thought "please don't say them, please don't say them!"...and he did. I sighed and facepalmed.
Two other worthwhile parts were when a woman talked about her relationship with a man significantly taller than her...by fourteen inches. Her source of discomfort came from believing that other people would assume they were father and daughter rather than a couple; however, she never mentioned her age or that of her boyfriend. The other part touched upon one of the footnotes in my previous post: a couple of tall women who were interviewed stated that they would not date men who were shorter than them.
I didn't learn anything particularly different from what I already knew; what I found more surprising was hearing a man use the rationales I regarded as sexist so soon after I made my argument. However, considering that I felt it necessary to write about this the other day, I shouldn't have been surprised.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Tall women
I have read personal stories from tall women about some of their dating troubles. A common* complaint by these women is how the men they wish to date are either intimidated by them or somehow "feel less manly" in their presence. I find the behaviour of such men bizarre and, more accurately, sexist.
Whenever I have been in the presence of a woman equal to me* in height or taller, I have never felt any hostility or fear towards her for being a tall woman. I've met plenty of people — men and women — taller than I am. Have they ever made me nervous? Certainly...back when I was I child, but even then I considered a tall person's gender irrelevant.
I think that many men who are freaked out by tall women are misogynists. The only reason a man could feel uncomfortable around a tall woman is because he perceives her to be a threat to his self-given "authority" or ability to bully her into conceding an argument to him by using his size advantage as a weapon. Any man who believes this or thinks that a tall woman would reduce his masculinity cannot be considered a man: he is a coward.
Even if he isn't a misogynist, a man of average or above average height bothered by tall women should put everything into perspective: how does a short woman feel when she has to interact with a man who is at least a foot higher than her? If the man intended to cause her harm it is unlikely she would be unable to stop him, but when it comes to a man and a woman of equal height, in most cases the man would still be physically stronger than the woman. Therefore, a man has no reason to feel insecure or threatened by tall women.
For the ultimate question, would I go out with a woman near my height or taller? My answer: Yes — why not? I'm not intimidated by tall women, I don't have a need or desire to control women or engage in one-upmanship over them (same goes for men) and I would not have any problem with being the shorter person in a relationship. I've observed taller woman/shorter man relationships before and I am happy for the people involved in them.
Men should not be insecure about tall women — or about women in general, for that matter — and nor should they only be romantically interested in shorter women purely to maintain a physical advantage in a relationship. All women, regardless of their stature, are entitled to basic respect.
[1] Some tall women prefer to date even taller men, and thus, limit their dating pool as a result. However, this post exclusively addresses male sexism.
[2] I am six feet tall and have met women taller than this.
Whenever I have been in the presence of a woman equal to me* in height or taller, I have never felt any hostility or fear towards her for being a tall woman. I've met plenty of people — men and women — taller than I am. Have they ever made me nervous? Certainly...back when I was I child, but even then I considered a tall person's gender irrelevant.
I think that many men who are freaked out by tall women are misogynists. The only reason a man could feel uncomfortable around a tall woman is because he perceives her to be a threat to his self-given "authority" or ability to bully her into conceding an argument to him by using his size advantage as a weapon. Any man who believes this or thinks that a tall woman would reduce his masculinity cannot be considered a man: he is a coward.
Even if he isn't a misogynist, a man of average or above average height bothered by tall women should put everything into perspective: how does a short woman feel when she has to interact with a man who is at least a foot higher than her? If the man intended to cause her harm it is unlikely she would be unable to stop him, but when it comes to a man and a woman of equal height, in most cases the man would still be physically stronger than the woman. Therefore, a man has no reason to feel insecure or threatened by tall women.
For the ultimate question, would I go out with a woman near my height or taller? My answer: Yes — why not? I'm not intimidated by tall women, I don't have a need or desire to control women or engage in one-upmanship over them (same goes for men) and I would not have any problem with being the shorter person in a relationship. I've observed taller woman/shorter man relationships before and I am happy for the people involved in them.
Men should not be insecure about tall women — or about women in general, for that matter — and nor should they only be romantically interested in shorter women purely to maintain a physical advantage in a relationship. All women, regardless of their stature, are entitled to basic respect.
[1] Some tall women prefer to date even taller men, and thus, limit their dating pool as a result. However, this post exclusively addresses male sexism.
[2] I am six feet tall and have met women taller than this.
Friday, 7 December 2012
On the word "frape"
For the most part, I am fairly relaxed about vulgar language. Rude words don't usually offend me unless they are said to excess, to which I then find them boring. That being said, there are certain words that do bother me - especially terms that are racist or sexist - with one in particular being "frape".
A "frape" is defined as when someone has their Facebook profile modified without permission by another person (hence, a portmanteau of "Facebook" and "rape"). It can refer to a person having their account broken into, but for the vast majority of the time it's when someone forgot to log out, their friends use their computer, and those friends change the person's profile around in a humorous manner.
I object most strongly to this frivolous use of the word "rape". Having your Facebook profile picture changed to a balloon or having nonsense written on your timeline is nothing compared to a woman having her body violated. A rape mentally and physically scars a woman for life; a couple of friends messing about with your profile will temporarily make you look foolish and ensure you remember to log out in future and/or increase your account's security. At the end of the day everyone will understand, laugh at, and move on from a non-hostile (if initially unwelcome) practical joke between friends; a rape is not at all humorous nor are its consequences merely fleeting.
The originator of "frape" probably came up with the term in good faith, but they and other people who have used it since don't understand that when we cheapen the word "rape" we risk trivialising how serious and disgusting rape really is. One could argue that editing a profile without permission is still a violation in itself - it is! It's an invasion of a person's space - but it's not rape. Even if an unrelated person hacks into an account it still cannot be likened to rape; it's both wrong and condemnable, but it's still not rape. I'm sure nearly everybody would object to having their accounts hijacked - and in no way am I playing down the importance of account security - but those same people would be further opposed to themselves and others being raped.
The solution to dealing with the usage of "frape" is to firmly explain why modifying a friend's Facebook profile is not comparable to the violation of a woman's body and the loss of her dignity. Say how offensive the term is to women who have suffered rape or how rape-related humour only serves to enable rapists. You could even say it comes across as misogynistic! However you decide to put it, make it clear that the word they are using is unacceptable. If we don't take action, nothing will change; I freely admit that I have made the mistake of letting the use of the aforementioned offensive term go unchallenged, and I am ashamed by that.
Rape is one of those topics that I refuse to take lightly. If we joke about rape we harm those affected by it, we encourage the rapists; and we do nothing in preventing others from becoming victims of such a violent, disgraceful act.
A "frape" is defined as when someone has their Facebook profile modified without permission by another person (hence, a portmanteau of "Facebook" and "rape"). It can refer to a person having their account broken into, but for the vast majority of the time it's when someone forgot to log out, their friends use their computer, and those friends change the person's profile around in a humorous manner.
I object most strongly to this frivolous use of the word "rape". Having your Facebook profile picture changed to a balloon or having nonsense written on your timeline is nothing compared to a woman having her body violated. A rape mentally and physically scars a woman for life; a couple of friends messing about with your profile will temporarily make you look foolish and ensure you remember to log out in future and/or increase your account's security. At the end of the day everyone will understand, laugh at, and move on from a non-hostile (if initially unwelcome) practical joke between friends; a rape is not at all humorous nor are its consequences merely fleeting.
The originator of "frape" probably came up with the term in good faith, but they and other people who have used it since don't understand that when we cheapen the word "rape" we risk trivialising how serious and disgusting rape really is. One could argue that editing a profile without permission is still a violation in itself - it is! It's an invasion of a person's space - but it's not rape. Even if an unrelated person hacks into an account it still cannot be likened to rape; it's both wrong and condemnable, but it's still not rape. I'm sure nearly everybody would object to having their accounts hijacked - and in no way am I playing down the importance of account security - but those same people would be further opposed to themselves and others being raped.
The solution to dealing with the usage of "frape" is to firmly explain why modifying a friend's Facebook profile is not comparable to the violation of a woman's body and the loss of her dignity. Say how offensive the term is to women who have suffered rape or how rape-related humour only serves to enable rapists. You could even say it comes across as misogynistic! However you decide to put it, make it clear that the word they are using is unacceptable. If we don't take action, nothing will change; I freely admit that I have made the mistake of letting the use of the aforementioned offensive term go unchallenged, and I am ashamed by that.
Rape is one of those topics that I refuse to take lightly. If we joke about rape we harm those affected by it, we encourage the rapists; and we do nothing in preventing others from becoming victims of such a violent, disgraceful act.
Monday, 12 March 2012
"Bad Romance: Women's Suffrage"
I was very impressed by this parody of Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" done by Soomo Publishing, titled "Bad Romance: Women's Suffrage".
Music videos are apparently not something Soomo Publishing normally create, but this parody is well-made in my opinion, and I think it does a good job it delivering its message. It stands up by itself and can be appreciated by people who are unfamiliar with Lady Gaga's music, though as always it can be a help to watch the original first.
The only other music video Soomo Publishing have made at this point is "Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration", based on "Apologize" by OneRepublic and Timbaland. I will be curious to see what similar works they will release in the future.
Music videos are apparently not something Soomo Publishing normally create, but this parody is well-made in my opinion, and I think it does a good job it delivering its message. It stands up by itself and can be appreciated by people who are unfamiliar with Lady Gaga's music, though as always it can be a help to watch the original first.
The only other music video Soomo Publishing have made at this point is "Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration", based on "Apologize" by OneRepublic and Timbaland. I will be curious to see what similar works they will release in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)