Those
thoughts struck me when hearing media reaction to the May 23, 2104
U.C. Santa Barbara killings.
The
media got an early Christmas (oops! Holiday) gift. The "control
everything" element of our society now got to rant not only over
their favorite control--gun control, but since this was a
multi-weapon attack, they could also throw in knife control and car
control. If they were really on a role, since the shooter, (who
should get no name recognition. I'll just call him PL for Pant Load),
was mixed race, they could also go for racism. These, as it turns
out, were not enough for the 24/7 news cycle so some of the more
creative media folks came up with---Objectification of Women.
Objectification
in this case meant making women no more than sex objects. It would
seem that PL snuffed out a number of lives because he had no luck
with the ladies, even though he was not bad looking, was rich, drove
a Beemer and was a sophomore in college, had never even kissed a girl
(which if I remember is "first base") much less circled the
bases. (Can you image what his personality must have been like for
a rich college kid to spend all those years on the bench?)
The
discussion of objectification of women got me thinking, and the more
I thought the more confused I got. Is this strictly a Western
phenomenon?
Looking
at the man/women relationship from a macro viewpoint. Women, it is
widely known, are a critical element in the continuation of the
human race. So therefore, nature gave them things that would attract
a male. So far so good, but then nature gave the male the greater sex
drive. So, we have the women decked out to attract the male who is
already predisposed to be "attracted." Seems like a waste
of something.
Why are women in the west most
often seen in the malls, schools and on casual Fridays at work in
tight Jeans or short skirts always with some degree of "scoop"
around the neck obviously designed to catch the already very easily
catchable male eye? On the beach we have women wearing two band aids
and a wedgie. On TV shows we see this beautiful, intelligent lawyer
lady pleading her case in front of the Supreme Court wearing clothes
designed by Larry Flynt. (Not that I'm complaining, I'm just saying.)
The
guys, on the other hand, who I assume the women are ultimately
dressing to attract, are walking around in relaxed Jeans (often times
half way down their butt, exposing sexy patterned boxer shorts) and
tee shirts with beer sayings on them. Wouldn’t it make more sense,
in the grand scheme of human population growth, for the males to be
decked out in thongs and halter tops screaming "take me, take
me."and the women wearing fashionable moo moos?
To
show we are all not one world, let's take a look at the other end of
the spectrum. Here are some rules for Muslim women:
- You must not bend, lift, carry and otherwise move in manners and places where men will see the outlines of your body through your clothes.
- You must not go out for meals even in public alone with men, be friends with them, or otherwise place yourself in a situation where indecent thoughts and desires may develop.
- You must not hug, hold hands with, or otherwise touch men.
- You must not project your voice in a manner that might be arousing to men.
With
all of that, the Muslim population growth rate is 1.8% per year with
the rest of the world trailing at 1.12%, and the Muslim ladies are
walking around following those rules draped in a black sheet with eye
holes cut out. I wonder how much "objectifying" is done
under those conditions?
I
am not making any excuses for sexual harassment, or worse. "No"
means"no," but I really have to wonder when I look around
how upset some women are at being objectified? "I'll do
anything I want and dress any way I want. It's up to you to control
yourself. " That philosophy works on 99% of the male
population. Then there is PL.
No comments:
Post a Comment