Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Three states in the USA deem vibrators to be too offensive, dangerous, and most likely intimidating, to be legal. With cries of outrage resounding at this revelation, I answer, “I know”. But hold on, it gets worse.
Only 21% of news subjects (interviewed or subject of the articles) are female. And to really get you guys in the fighting mood, the amount of women earning degrees has overtaken men for the first time, and yet women are earning 27% less than men for doing the same job.
International Women’s Day has become so saturated with statistics that it now has to take over an entire week to begin to scratch the surface of worldwide inequality. And yet, when women take up nearly two thirds of the world’s population, I think that women everywhere are entitled to feel a little miffed at this rather poor gesture. It looks to me like a bunch of wilting daisies, clutched in a rather clammy palm.
Women do two thirds of the world’s work and earn 10% of the income. And 51 weeks of the year are dedicated to the pursuits and exploits of men.
Women do two thirds of the world’s work and earn 10% of the income. And 51 weeks of the year are dedicated to the pursuits and exploits of men.
I’m not suggesting that it is a daily occurrence to witness blokes slapping each other on the backs and yelling, “Hell Yeah! We’re men, and we do men things” (on second thoughts, Ziggy's...), and yet generally men fill every important job position, have a better quality of health, and can pee standing up at the side of the road when on a long car journey. Now I feel a little hard done by.
International Women’s Week goes across Week 8 of this term, and it’s a great chance to see how women around the world are doing compared to a few years ago. Sometimes it’s encouraging, sometimes it’s scarier than Shane Richie kissing your mum. But it’s always worth taking notice of.
The people at International Women’s Week don’t just compile statistics. On the website there are loads of articles, such as whether the women of America will fare better with Obama, and countries all around the world are hosting different events to celebrate female achievements. Canada is hosting a silent auction and buffet with Rita Fournier, TV personality, radio star and singer/song writer (Nope. Me neither.) As well, they’ve organised book readings from survivors of domestic violence, and sessions to help women living with violence and child rearing.
America is chipping in with a cocktail evening in San Francisco, a fundraiser for the women of Gaza in California and a talk about the women’s ‘revolution’ in film and photography. Us Brits are putting on a myriad of talks about women in slavery, women with Obama, and displays of art ‘from Wales and beyond’. (OK. So we’re not the most fun lot. But incredibly important events nonetheless.)
And a little closer to home, the York University Women’s Committee are putting on a couple of things in aid of the week, so feel free to come along and show your support! There’s a clothes swap on March 5th in Goodricke Dining Hall from 10 ‘till 3, which the lovely people at Environment and Ethics are also getting stuck into. Recycling clothes is a great way to help the environment, as well as being a nice, nearly free way to replenish your wardrobe.
More than anything, International Women’s Week is a great opportunity to think about the state of women in the world, and this week will be a perfect chance for some of you to get a glimpse of what could happen next year, even if you just look at the website. In the words of the London Feminist Organisation’s Finn McKay, “I’ll see you on the front line”.
Not sure that the vibrator point is even relevant to this issue and I, personally, don't pee on the side of a motorway but there are many important issues surrounding women's rights and commonplace differences between sexes and they really do need to be addressed.
Rock on, guys*
Why is the vibrator point irrelevant? What business is it of these states to dictate how women should seek sexual pleasure? I imagine that the subtext of this law is that instead of using a vibrator, these women should be engaging in heterosexual penetrative sex. Heaven forbid that a woman might want an orgasm instead of a child!
"women take up nearly two thirds of the world’s population"
Really??? I always thought it was about half and half, with women slightly in the majority over men.
2:1 is big news to me!
Does Jason Rose have a life outside the yorker? He seems to be the reincarnation of myles preston. Very sad.
Strange, because I seem to spend a total of 3 minutes per day on the Yorker, about 3 hours on this computer not on the Yorker, about 6 hours sleeping and about 15 hours doing anything else.
As the only guy who regularly attends Women's Committee I feel that I am entitled to respond to this issue. Lay off me and focus on the issue at hand.
Oh and on the vibrator point - I don't think it's sexist. I think that it's a sign of problems within their culture, alongside that of banning abortions and homosexuality. 3 states probably ban not being Republican because states act stupidly - 3 states is nothing.
It's a very minor point, if it is an anti-women point, and wouldn't have been the start of the article for me. I'm not criticising, I'm just saying that the psychological rapes in the west of Africa are slightly more important than banning dildos!
Inequality effects nearly everyone at some point, we generally just choose an arbritrary boundary of sex.
What are your thoughts on women being paid the same for winning Tennis tournaments? Frankly, I think it's greed gone mad.....quabbling over an extra 50k out of circa 700k. For a product which is about three times shorter and not at as high a standard. But because it's on 'at the same time' they should share the revenue....well, so is the kids event! Do they get that much?!
And before you start, yes, the mens game attracts more TV revenue than the womens.
But you make some good points, inequality whatever the barrier should not be tolerated, quality should be objectively (as possible) assessed and then rewards given accordingly.
Back to the vibrator point, of course it is just one problem of their culture but it is still a women's issue, hence its relevance to the article and its deserving to be included in events such as international women's week. I think you have to be really careful when you start saying things like 'the psychological rapes in the west of Africa are slightly more important than banning dildos!' Trying to assert an agenda on which women's issues are important and which are not will leave you on slippery political ground. Is the issue of equal pay less important than these rapes? Is a woman's right to vote less important than these rapes? Is a woman's right to an abortion less important than these rapes? Is a woman's right to be homosexual less important than these rapes?
Clearly rape is a more violent example of issues that women face, which I imagine is why you chose to include it as part of your persuasive rhetoric. However, its violence alone does not make it more or less important than other issues. Personally, if vibrators were banned tomorrow then this would affect me far more than issues in other countries as it would affect me directly. Therefore how can you quantify the importance and unimportance of certain issues?
I feel that all women's issues should be considered on a par as they all derive from the same underlying cause: patriarchal frameworks that function and are perpetuated by means of systems of inequality. Your 'put up and shut up because some people are worse off than you' attitude feeds straight back into these systems, as it suppresses and devalues certain issues that women face.
And good for you for regularly attending women's committee. However, this does not give your views any more weight than those of other men, and women who do not attend these meetings. You may not have intended it, but your second post came across as very condescending.
"Clearly rape is a more violent example of issues that women face, which I imagine is why you chose to include it as part of your persuasive rhetoric."
No. Not at all.
The situation I was talking about was that where women in certain parts of Western Africa are raped SOLELY for the psychological effect on the men in the area. Girls are raped before their father, wives are raped before their husbands, mothers are raped before their children - JUST to have lasting psychological damage on men.
In general, of course, rapes are horrendous... but when the rape is there solely to cause problems to other people.. well, it's like killing civilians to scare the soldiers (atom bomb?)
Of course the patriarchal framework is the real cause for a lot of these things but the vibrator issue isn't because it's a partiarchal system - it's banned in right-wing states that believe that contraception and abortions are also wrong because they've got a twisted view of Christianity and also think that it should be enshrined in law.
Granted that the vibrator thing could be construed as a women's issue but I think that targeting countries where women are raped without it being a criminal offense or where women still can't vote, etc., are more likely to stir something in International Women's Week.
And I did not say, at all, that attending the meetings gives my view more weight. I was simply pointing out that I am perfectly entitled to respond to this thread since I'm aware of the issues at hand. It was a counter-point to the whole "oh, Jason Rose doesn't do anything but post here" when I spend about 5 minutes a day on this website!
Personally, the deeply imbedded and subtle forms of female oppression are just as terrifying as rape. Rape is a result of these naturalisations of gender differences that cause some men to view women as tools to use in war, despite women not being involved in war. the little differences, like female sexual pleasure from masurbation being frowned upon more than by men (I don't think porn is banned in those states!) perpetuates every other, more brutal and violent form of oppression.
I agree with #10 completely. But in answer to Jason's previous post, where he begins quoting my previous anonymous post: I think you've missed, or ignored, my entire point. I was not trying to ascertain the brutality, or reasoning behind the rapes of west Africa; merely pointing out that to start ranking the importance of women's issues is to feed back into the system of oppression. And consequently, by dismissing the outlawing of a sex toy, in favour of other issues that you think are more worthy, is to do just that.
Also the terms 'patriarchal system' and 'right-wing states' are not mutually exclusive terms: most systems are patriarchal, and some of them might be right wing. And if a right-wing government are interfering with the rights of women, then it is a women's issue regardless of whether or not such ideologies are also grounded in Christian beliefs (Christian beliefs in these states, I might add, tend to revolve around the idea that women are inferior to men; that a woman should be subservient to a husband etc).
If a law affects a woman - even if it is a law about a sex toy - then it can be considered a women's issue (just as beliefs on contraception and abortion also affect women).
Two points on this, and I'd like to make it clear that I am all in favour of total equality between men and women and that I agree with the people above on policies etc.
a) their Christian beliefs are misguided - subservience of a wife to a husband doesn't mean inferiority or slavery.
b) they haven't banned male pornography or female masturbation, only vibrators. I suspect that men aren't allowed to use male vibrators, electric rings, suction pumps or other equivalents in those states either, though I don't know. I think that it's a general freedom thing and not a patriarchal thing.
NB: I've never used any of the items I've described and I don't know that they exist because I'm weird or fetichy, if you see those items as being that. I think I'm blabbing now but hopefully you understand my point!
"subservience of a wife to a husband doesn't mean inferiority or slavery." That is exactly what it means! subservience, taking the from of obidience even if to seemingly ordinary and rational requests, is an inferiority. I do not think that someone who commands can be seen as in the same position as someone who obeys! Also, the vibrator is a typically female tool. it is only recent that such toys for men have been in common existence enough to be sold in Ann Summers, and even now it is not 'common' for a man to use one alone for private masturbation. The law banning vibrators is against women. It is against a tool to be used to pleasure a woman without simultaneously pleasuring a man, and for sexual pleasure without procreation. it is a patriarchal thing.
You don't understand the context in which the verse is taken. It is taken with the context of the husband being Christ-like and Christ was MOST DEFINITELY subservient. I could write a 10,000 word essay on this (I'm not going to) but if you think it's advocating patriarchy then you have misinterpreted it.
On the vibrator thing AGAIN... Men and women are both allowed to buy pornographic magazines of either sex, men and women are both allowed to masturbate and neither sex is allowed to use a "sex toy". I agree that it's a bit dumb but HOW IS IT SEXIST?
Jesus Jason, have you ever even read the Goddamn bible?
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Genesis 3:16
GENESIS
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife - again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.
EXODUS
20:17 Wife as property.
21:4 Wife and children belong to master.
21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex.
Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set "free" without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.
LEVITICUS
12:1 Childbirth a sin, Women unclean after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
NUMBERS
1:2 Census lists only men - women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman's vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves
DEUTERONOMY
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim's father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman's hand for touching foe's penis.
24:1-5 Man can "send" wife from HIS house. Man must not marry "used" woman.
JUDGES
5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.
2 SAMUEL
5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines.
1 KINGS
11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
ESTHER
CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting "bad" example to all other women.
PROVERBS
CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.
ISAIAH
3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)
EZEKIEL
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity...
HOSEA
13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones.
NAHUM
3:4... wanton lust of a harlot... prostitution... witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13... Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)
MATTHEW
5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.
LUKE
2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.
I CORINTHIANS
11:2-10... Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.
EPHESIANS
5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.
COLOSSIANS
3:18 Wives submit to husbands
I TIMOTHY
2:11-15 Woman must not have authority…she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints' feet.
1 PETER
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.
REVELATION
CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4...they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.
Most of the examples given in the latter half are examples that are there because of the culture that they're in. Great prostitute of the sky was talking about how Rome whored itself across the whole of the earth, etc, etc.
Granted that menstruation laws in Leviticus are very dodgy now but *at the time* it was important. Look at how much money is spent in supplying sanitary products to women by charities worldwide... if they don't provide them, refugees DIE. It's an extreme example but it can spread disease so to an extent it made sense at the time.
Genesis is sexist, I'll give you that, but I don't really think that women feel pain in childbirth because of a fig being eaten in the garden of Eden. A bit fably... Deuteronomy's quote is the same either way - sex outside of marriage is punishable for death for men AND women.
The Corinthians quote is also specifically written in a period in which women were not educated and men were. I agree that it's sexist in the modern world and that churches that use it to support having only-male speakers are being sexist and wrong, but the quote itself was written to the people at the time.
Remember that men are told to be like Christ and to serve all people in a variety of places, often by Jesus himself, so the servitude thing works both ways. I didn't dispute that women should serve men but that men should also do the same for women. I could go on for days, if you want me too - taking things out of both written context (you're quoting a single verse and not the entire chapter... and each chapter was invented since the original text had no separations) and historical context (since we're reading them with modern eyes).
When you remember that menstruation used to cause disease, women used to be uneducated (and yes, that was most definitely a more patriarchal society!), men are to serve women as much as v.v.; you can see that the bible isn't as sexist as most make it out to be.
Though I agree; if you look at the Catholic church and some crazy churches in the USA then you'll find huge amounts of sexism in the name of religion. It's similar to religious genocide, though - you can't say that the crusades were a good example of Christian theology at work!
Following my previous post (#11), my purpose wasn't to try to explode a debate on whether Christianity itself was inherently sexist but to simply continue a point that Jason himself made earlier when he said that these states in question have a 'twisted view on Christianity' (his words). I can't help but feel that this debate over how one should interpret sexism in the Bible is beside the point, as I'm sure that we all can agree that the states in question take Christian views to the extreme in order to justify their unequal treatment of women. Therefore they're not representative of Christianity, or Christians, as a whole.
In response to #14, it is sexist and a women's issue. Women do not consume porn in the same way that men do; the porn industry is aimed at men, and it is men, by and large, that buy its products. So a woman's right to buy porn isn't really a right at all, it's redundant. I've no doubt that if large numbers of women started to exercise this 'right' then there would soon be a law against it, as these states would fear that women were becoming morally bankrupt.
Secondly, sex toys may be also banned for men, but this doesn't affect them in the same way. I would argue that the majority of men do not need a sex toy to have an orgasm through masturbation - this is certainly true of the men I know. On the other hand, I would argue that many women do need a sex toy to have an orgasm (which would account for the vibrator being so popular among women in a way that male sex toys among men are not).
Just because the laws might look equal, doesn't mean they are. And these laws certainly don't take into account the differences between male and female bodies. I imagine that this is intentional. Under a guise of equality, these laws just reinforce gender inequality.
Of course the bible is sexist! God the FATHER and the SON...God himself is explicitly male.
Of course the other two Abrahamic religious texts are sexist too. Maybe part of it is the culture it was written in...but surely Gods word is Gods word?!?!
Even now the CofE is split over women bishops, the catholics wont even allow female priests and I'll be long gone before the world sees an official female imam.
I'm a man btw, but given that i'm already going to hell for not being part of God's chosen race I thought i might as well stick the boot in over women's rights as well.
Thanks #17, good post. I can't answer with statistics about how easy it is for men or women to reach orgasm compared to one another as experience of both is rather limited! If it's the case that a much higher % of men are able to without additional help then I can see that point. I'm not convinced that it's necessarily the case, however.
And yes, I can understand that people may see many points in the bible as sexist. I would have chosen the quote that Eve was made as a partner for Adam because he was lonely (sort of) and wasn't made alongside him. Whether you, however, take that as literal fact or an ancient fable will change the story. Likewise I wouldn't say that the bible is sexist for saying God or Jesus were male... I mean, Jesus WAS male and had he been female he would have been stoned to death for speaking in synagogues (I think?) and I don't recall anywhere in the bible as saying that God spoke with a female voice so I'd assume that it's that way around as well.
Ok, so maybe the choice of words can encourage sexism subliminally but they're not chose TO BE SEXIST, if you see what I mean?
The arguments about religious texts being sexist because they were written in a more patriarchal society than today simply does not work.
If one can ignore these references because it doesn't co-incide with our current society, surely it has to be accepted than by extension murder, theft, adultery and homosexuality needn't be sins? If you can ignore some parts because it isn't relevant to day I think it's fair to say that you may as well ignore the whole thing.
I know it's not relevant to the original argument in any way, but I think it's a valid point to make about subsequent ones.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report