Since a post with panties in the title has attracted thousands of hits even though the topic was women’s rights and the panties mentioned were “big girl” with an admonition to pull them on and change the world, I’m wearing mine again … and, no, I won’t be offering multi-day-worn undies on Japanese eBay, no matter how much pocket money that provides schoolgirls there … hoping to get folks who may not tune their dials to the plight of the world’s female population to give a read, and perhaps even a thought.
The recent subject has revolved around the question of how and why a a planet with inhabitants that are more than 50% of the girl persuasion gets away with treating that majority like shit. The answer may be as simple as: Because it can.
The minority most certainly has a vested interest in keeping up this sucky status quo, as illustrated by this load of protected bollocks:
Conservative clerics in Iran have criticised a proposal by re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to include three women in his new cabinet.
“There are religious doubts over the abilities of women when it comes to management,” said hardline lawmaker Mohammad Taghi Rahbar.
He said his views were shared by many MPs from his clerics’ faction, which dominates Iran’s parliament.
Yep. He’s afraid his gnarled set of piyaz torshi will sink to the bottom of a bowl of turshulu aash and his bullshit will never float again if women have the power to do more than run households, live within budgets, oversee families and all that other stuff that keeps him and his cronies going.
But it’s not only men dedicated to the perpetuation of perpetual misery for their own mothers, sisters, daughters and wives doing damage.
Take women in Mali for an example …
Tens of thousands of people in Mali’s capital, Bamako, have been protesting against a new law which gives women equal rights in marriage.
The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock.
The head of a Muslim women’s association says only a minority of Malian women – “the intellectuals” as she put it – supports the law.
Amazing how often “intellectual” is spat toward a supposedly thinking world like a shit-covered fly … wouldn’t want to swallow anything having to do with smart now, would we?
And intellectual women? OMG! Stop them. Stop them now … and while you’re at it, beat them and throw acid in their faces.
Which brings us to this, right back where we started a couple of days ago in Afghanistan … a story in the NYTimes about acid attacks on girls in Kandahar who have the temerity to go to school.
… Through the mask, he asked Shamsia what seemed like a strange question.
“Are you going to school?”
The masked man pulled the scarf away from Shamsia’s face and, with his other hand, pumped the trigger on his spray gun. Shamsia felt as if her face and eyes were on fire. As she screamed, the masked man reached for Atifa, who was already running. He pulled at her and tore her scarf away and pumped the spray into her back. The men sped off toward another group of girls. Shamsia lay in the street holding her burning face.
I hold out some hope that outrage will replace apathy and that we eventually approach the tipping point where women will have finally had enough of this and turn the tables … and chairs and beds.
Watch out world when that happens, because the backlash is gonna be fierce.
Have I mentioned that my friend Gay spouts her solution far and wide … and with no little support resulting? The plan? Universal Male Castration. Since the announcement of the creation of artificial sperm, her arguments for a world where balls are just beach toys is getting more attention.
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
Women are often their own worst enemies.
Rather like the Democrats … You think we’d all learn, and thankfully the Dems managed to pull the finger out this time around. Let’s see if women can do the same …
Today in church the second reading was about woman being submissive to men. It was read by a woman and as she read this I watched the men around me who were with their wives and girlfriends and give them that “you better listen” smile. I was disgusted but earlier in the week I was sent a reading from a Krishna group basically saying the same thing. That disgusted me also. So Muslims, Hindus and Christians do have something in common. A hatred for any woman with a mind of her own and the ability to stand on her own two feet with out the help of any man. It’s a sad state of affairs but then again I live in a country where the accepted reply to anything that is considered bad or you don’t like is to say “That’s so Gay.” And it appears people are OK with that. I hold no hope for this cesspool we call our home and it’s complete destruction will not bring a tear of sorrow to my eyes and it can not come soon enough.
Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Animists, Atheists, Republicans … whatever. Where balls dangle, women get the short end of the dick … stick … same/same.
And, what’s this “That’s so Gay” thing? I don’t get it. That’s some commonly used slam these days?
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing “bullshit” replaced by “testosterone” … as in, “That’s a load of testosterone.”
(Sorry, Robbie. I know you have balls and testosterone, but you’re forgiven both, and “That’s so Gay” sounds like a compliment in my world.
[…] more from the original source: Panties aside … « Paradise Preoccupied Share and […]
I don’t think it’s a religion problem. I think it’s a patriarchy problem. And how illogical is patriarchy, anyways? I mean, you always know who the mother is… trying to remain 100% certain about who the father is calls for a LOT of social constructs.
Exactly, der, if horrors like female genital mutilation can be considered a social construct. The only reason for clitoridectomy is to make sure a woman gets no pleasure from sex, therefore reducing the likelihood that she may wander and increasing the possibility that offspring might just have been fathered by someone else.
Social constructs can be wonderful or horrific, so yeah I’d say it’s definitely one.
I know this is probably going to sound controversial, but I think male genital mutilation (circumcision) is just as cruel as female genital mutilation. I see no health benefit to male circumcision in societies with access to clean water and soap, and after being in a relationship with an uncircumcised man for over 4 years, I can say he was at no greater risk of infection than any of my circumcised partners.
The only difference is that female genital mutilation occurs later on in life, and circumcision usually occurs at birth in America. However, in Africa most boys are circumcised well after birth.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m against all forced genital mutilation, including clitoridectomy.
And I’m on a tangent again. Sorry….
Although I am no fan of the clipped male member unless dictated by medical need, which does occasionally happen, comparing fgm with circumcision … and that is something that only happens to penises, as the term applied to what is done to women is nothing more than a dangerous euphemism used to smear the line between minor surgery and total mutilation … is simply not valid. (I have long wondered about the inclination in America to crop regardless of religious dictates.)
Circumcised men can and do continue to have and enjoy sex, but with the entire point behind mutilating women being the removal of that possibility the practice must be put in a whole different league.
As an aside, there is now a big push for circumcision in Africa in attempts to slow the transmission of HIV. Apparently there is something about the cells that collect under foreskin that are especially fertile ground for the virus and removing the hiding place for them cuts the rate of infection drastically.
Here’s a link to info.
With fgm, however, the practice itself is a health risk and does no good at all … unless making sure a woman never wants sex is considered a good thing.
And, by the way, I’m a big fan of tangents, so feel free … and thanks.
I completely disagree, Sandra. I think that FGM seems more severe to us because it’s illegal and socially unacceptable, and against the very nature of our society. However, circumcision is considered acceptable because the majority of the people in the US follow an Abrahamic faith. I’m not stupid enough to imply that circumcision is as severe as fgm, but I still think it’s not right.
Also, circumcision does reduce sensitivity, and has been promoted over the years as an effective method to stop men from masturbating (another fascination with patriarchy — stop wasting your sperm, you need to focus on making more of us).
In regards to the HIV bit, two comments:
1) http://www.mothering.com/health/truth-about-circumcision-and-hiv
2) If going through FGM were to reduce my risk for contracting HIV, I still wouldn’t do it.
Routine circumcision makes as little sense as routine episiotomy. If I ever have a son he won’t be circumcised. He can make that choice as an adult.
FGM does not simply reduce sensitivity, it eliminates it, and causes horrific problems in sex, childbirth, etc., and I worry that clouding the issue lessens the outrage. Discussing circumcision in the US and in Africa are also two different ball games.
For what it’s worth, my son, Sam, is intact, and at the age of 6 well knows how to clean under his foreskin.
Dear Ms Benoiton,
I would like to extend an invitation to write for the monthly Carnival of the Elitist Bastards. The driving force behind the Carnival is Dana Hunter.
The poem below is the ‘official’ poem of the carnival which I wrote several years ago.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Fowler
“The 21st Century”
In the 21st Century.
People can no longer hear,
because they have surrendered
their ears.
And instead they survive
every second by shooting
a drug called apathy
directly into their veins.
In the 21st Century.
People can no longer see,
because they have gouged
their eyes.
And instead they cope
worm like by following
the noise of culture
blaring from every corner.
In the 21st Century.
People can no longer taste,
because they have severed
their tongues.
And instead they seek
sensations by observing
the suffering and
disasters of others.
In the 21st Century.
People can no longer feel,
because they have flayed
their skin.
And instead they crave
nourishment by rooting
in putrid refuse
heaped in the gutter.
In the 21st Century.
people can no longer care,
because they have siphoned
their brains.
And instead they grope
hopelessly for understanding
by desperate fondling
of the drug called apathy.
Thank you, Brian. I would be proud to write for the “Carnival”, as busting apathy pushers is a job I like to sink my snarly jaws into.