![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yes, there is a war, boys versus girls
Feb. 23rd, 2009 12:31 pm( First, a quiz result. )
Speaking of which, I came across this article on Iraqi war widows today. Here are a few choice excerpts from it:
Widows and their advocates say that to receive benefits they must either have political connections or agree to temporary marriages with the powerful men who control the distribution of government funds.
When asked why the money should not go directly to the women, Mr. Shihan laughed. "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting," he said. "But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her children for the rest of their lives. This is according to our tradition and our laws."
I'm all in favor of tolerating other cultures, but it's possible to take that too far, and I'm not down with patriarchal poppycock like that. Of course, it's not just Iraq that has this patronizing attitude toward women. Are women still supposed to walk behind men in Japan? (Equality issues aside, I personally wouldn't want to have to keep looking back to see if she was still there. :P) And even in this oh-so-enlightened nation, women often make less than men while working at the same jobs. While I don't think these attitudes are going to change overnight, I also feel that it doesn't make sense to pretend to champion liberty and democracy when some of your citizens are considered inferior because they lack Y chromosomes.
The "traditional role" of women seems kind of incongruous to me anyway. If women are naturally stupider and lazier, then why do men trust them to prepare food and raise children (whom many people, including Whitney Houston, regard as our future)? I don't think I'd be very good at child-rearing. Then again, I also wouldn't be particularly competent at hunting or gathering, so I suppose I fail both traditional gender roles.
And while on the subject of feminism, I've always thought the suggestion that women have to focus on either family or career is rather demeaning. I obviously think it's a matter of personal choice, but that's not my main point here. Rather, if a woman (or a man, for that matter, but you don't hear it as much about us) doesn't want to dedicate herself to children, she has to dedicate herself to an employer? What's so bad about living for yourself?
Speaking of which, I came across this article on Iraqi war widows today. Here are a few choice excerpts from it:
Widows and their advocates say that to receive benefits they must either have political connections or agree to temporary marriages with the powerful men who control the distribution of government funds.
When asked why the money should not go directly to the women, Mr. Shihan laughed. "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting," he said. "But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her children for the rest of their lives. This is according to our tradition and our laws."
I'm all in favor of tolerating other cultures, but it's possible to take that too far, and I'm not down with patriarchal poppycock like that. Of course, it's not just Iraq that has this patronizing attitude toward women. Are women still supposed to walk behind men in Japan? (Equality issues aside, I personally wouldn't want to have to keep looking back to see if she was still there. :P) And even in this oh-so-enlightened nation, women often make less than men while working at the same jobs. While I don't think these attitudes are going to change overnight, I also feel that it doesn't make sense to pretend to champion liberty and democracy when some of your citizens are considered inferior because they lack Y chromosomes.
The "traditional role" of women seems kind of incongruous to me anyway. If women are naturally stupider and lazier, then why do men trust them to prepare food and raise children (whom many people, including Whitney Houston, regard as our future)? I don't think I'd be very good at child-rearing. Then again, I also wouldn't be particularly competent at hunting or gathering, so I suppose I fail both traditional gender roles.
And while on the subject of feminism, I've always thought the suggestion that women have to focus on either family or career is rather demeaning. I obviously think it's a matter of personal choice, but that's not my main point here. Rather, if a woman (or a man, for that matter, but you don't hear it as much about us) doesn't want to dedicate herself to children, she has to dedicate herself to an employer? What's so bad about living for yourself?
