Sexism - Vyoos

Vyoos

follow this blog

25 followers

331 daily readers

rank of 32

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Sexism - Vyoos

A story about a woman’s rights, lefts, hooks and upper cuts

May 18th 2010 03:54

Saudi Arabia’s religious police are not popular. Their job, fundamentally, is to ensure that Saudi women behave the way Saudi men think they should behave.

The thinking of Saudi men can be summed up by the fact that they have religious police in the first place.

Recently one woman, aged in her 20s, visited an amusement park with a young man. This is the sort of irresponsible behaviour which young people will get up to without adequate supervision. How, for example, are the religious police to know, just by looking at two young people strolling around an amusement park, if they are married? It is important to know this, of course, because in Saudi Arabia it is a crime for an unmarried couple to be alone together.

The religious police approached the two young people and initiated questioning about the legality of their activity.

In response, the young woman punched a policeman. Then she punched him again. In fact, she landed quite a number of blows, and as a consequence he was taken to hospital to be treated for fairly serious facial injuries.

Now the story worsens. Instead of decrying the violence as an outrageous and irresponsible denial of the customs and traditions of Saudi society, many women in the country are cheering.

One, a women's rights activist named Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, said, “To see resistance from a woman means a lot. People are fed up with these religious police, and now they pay for the humiliation they cause. There will be more resistance.''

Fighting words. Policemen beware.

The names of the young couple and date of the incident have not been made public. The woman faces a lengthy prison term and lashings – not for punching the policeman, but for refusing to confirm her relationship to the man.

Sources: News Corp, The Media Line news agency, Okaz newspaper, Jerusalem Post newspaper.

155

Vote

Comments (3)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Religion, Sexism

Email this Post to a Friend

Tuxedo veto, let alone the lesbianism

March 12th 2010 05:47

Constance McMillen

VYOOS EDITORIAL
We all have decisions to make in life, and the decisions we make define us.

Constance McMillen, of the Mississippi town of Fulton, population about 4,000, decided she wanted to go to her high school prom with her lesbian partner, and she wanted to go dressed in a tuxedo.

The district school board of Itwamba County decided to take issue with the clothing side of McMillen's intentions. A female may not attend a prom, they said, wearing a tuxedo.

The American Civil Liberties Union then informed the Itwamba County school board that its decision was illegal. Not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her rights of free expression. Further, the ACLU said, please note that banning same-sex prom dates is a violation of students' rights.

The Itwamba County school board decided, that being the case, they would cancel the prom "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events''. In a true political soft-shoe shuffle, it mentioned neither Constance McMillen nor the ACLU.

As a consequence, Constance McMillen decided that she had made a mess of things for everyone and couldn't face going back to school. Her father decided to say a few words. It was important, he said, to face her classmates, teachers and officials. "Daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am,'' said Constance.

Back at school, Constance faced some hostility. "Thanks for ruining my senior year," said one student, who has a bright future on the Itwamba County school board.

But Constance was back in the groove which gave her the courage and confidence in the first place to propose going to the prom on her own terms. "The fact that this will help people later on, that's what's helping me to go on," she said.

Good decision.
source, picture: www.dallasvoice.com

Vote

Comments (4)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: North America, US, Sexism, Vyoos Editorial

Email this Post to a Friend

Are the Academy Awards sexist?

March 6th 2010 21:58

VYOOS EDITORIAL
The Academy awards are sexist because the Best Actor Awards are separated into genders. We don't have separate Best Actor awards for black and white actors, so why should we have them for men and women?

This argument for a single-gender Best Actor category at all festivals of film has been put forward by Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the Center for Study of Women at the University of California, Los Angeles, and has gained prominence this week after Elsesser wrote this article about it in The New York Times.

"Separate is not equal," says Elsesser. "While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined.

The Oscars, she says, have separated male and female actors into two categories to make sure women get their share of the awards spotlight. "In the 21st century women contend with men for titles ranging from the American president to the American Idol. Clearly, there is no reason to still segregate acting Oscars by sex."

Nice try. Sexism is an important issue, and any suggestion of sexism deserves to be met with the full force of objective public scrutiny. Sexism within the ranks of a venerable institution such as the The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is even more headline-worthy. Wait until the week of the Academy Awards to publish your story, and you have done everything possible to maximise the impact of your story.

If you think I am suggesting Elsesser's claim is cynical opportunism, you are right.

At the heart of the argument is the claim that having Best Actor gongs for men and women insults women. Rubbish. How does it insult women? And if it does insult women, why doesn't it insult men too?

Kim Elsesser suggests the actor awards were separated from the beginning (the first Academy Awards were in 1929) because at that time women had only recently won the right to vote and "so perhaps it was reasonable to offer them their own acting awards". Isn't this turning a positive into a negative? And the argument doesn't make sense, because if that were really the Academy's motivation, why didn't it make the directing, screenplay, music, costume etc awards separate too?

The Academy created Best Actor awards for men and women because it was an eminently sensible thing to do. It reflects the fact that the roles of men and women in films, as of course in life, are different. There are naturally different physical and psychological responses to events. There are largely single-gender issues such as motherhood and priesthood. The roles of women and men are as separate in film as they are in the real world which film reflects.

Recognising that does not create inequality.

"Collapsing two major categories into one would have the added value of reducing the length of the awards show, a move that many viewers would laud," says Elsesser towards the end of her article. Some may laud it, but they have the option of going to make a cup of tea if they get bored, or not watching in the first place. For the industry and for the fans, this night of nights can't go long enough, and for them the thought of losing two of the biggest, most drama-filled moments of the Academy Awards is as unthinkable as it is unnecessary.