That horrendous new Christina Augillermaleria-or-however-you-spell-it song is currently on the radio, and its general impression is that girls are stronger than boys, you can rise up blah blah blah the usual feminist teachings. If a bloke was singing a song for blokes to the same effect, it would be sexism.
So tell me, women may sing about the empowerment of women, but what of the other half of the human race? If Gareth Gates started singing about how men can rise up and get somewhere in the world no matter what, his career would be even more over than it is already. Does that seem wholly unfair to anyone else? And extremely sexist by its own definition?
What are we teaching our children here?
Hi little girl. You will probably face some discrimination for being naturally weaker than your male counterparts, but the law is on your side. Don't let your gender hold you back, you are as much, if not more, than any man will ever be. You go girl, smash that glass ceiling! (I go an all girls school, I have had that speech many times, and most of it is direct quotation.)
Hi little boy. Due to nothing that is your fault, you will have many sexist jokes called after you, you may be turned away from something in the name of positive discrimination, you will be accused of leering, oggling and lusting after women, and you will not be able to retaliate without being called a sexist pig.
Don't whinge at me for being sexist against women, I'M A GIRL. But I am a mildly annoyed girl. I could use my gender (and my chest) to get myself through certain parts in life. In fact, I already have a few times. But it has got to the point now where if a woman goes in for a job against a group of men and she doesn't get hired, she can play the sexism card. That isn't empowerment of women, that's exploitation of men. The two are definitely not the same.
I know that if you look back in history women have had a pretty raw deal. Girls were believed too stupid to need to go to school for a very long time. Even though the country prospered noticably under several of its queens (and smouldered with protestants under others), we are often taught of the follies of kings rather than the faults of queens.
There is a distinct lack of female input in the fields of art and science through history. Marie Curie and thingy who discovered DNA are the only two I can think of right now, and there are only about 3 female poets in an Oxford English poetry book I have, though that was written when women were still getting a lot of stick. This doesn't mean that there were no clever women in history, but it doesn't automatically mean there were hundreds of them hiding in closets bursting with new ideas, either.
One thing I find no justification for is denying women of the vote, and even when that was corrected it took however much longer to get equal voting rights. Yes, women definitely got the blunt end of that pencil.
There is the issue of promiscuity too, whereby it seems more acceptable for men to have multiple partners than it is for women. Why should men be allowed to sleep around but not women? Countless PSE lessons are speaking there. This is an outdated view now, I've found, because half the time everyone is sleeping with everyone else. The pill gave women more freedom, yes, and young mothers are nothing new, Jane Seymor of Henry VIII fame was only about 17 when she had Edward. Just because they're not married doesn't automatically make them irresponsible or a slut. If they are a single mother, that is what we now have the CSA for. But then you get women who exploit that system, getting pregnant whilst claiming to be on the pill, so their unfortunate one-time partner has to pay for something that is no fault of theirs for the next 18 years. This is using sex in the wrong way.
I know there's that whole glass ceiling thing, where you can see where you want to be in life once you get that job or that promotion, but can't because you're a woman, and I know it still exists. But things are getting better remember, for genuine cases there is the European Court of Human Rights, where you can take yor case and shove it up your employer's arse, and all the more for real cases. But people are using this to their own gain, and that just isn't right.
But most of that is past now. Maggie and her Knickers of Steel could never have reigned if discrimination were still as rife as some would have us believe. We can't live in the past because if we did, the inequalities will still exist, but would be more hidden as men get irate from being called sexist bastards or told they think in their pants every time they tell someone they look nice. How often are women scolded for staring at men's arses? And don't deny it, it happens a lot.
The unfairness of it can be condensed into a joke I found once, and I think I used it on Thing a while ago.
What do you call it when a guy talks dirty to a girl?
Sexual harassment.
What do you call it when a girl talks dirty to a guy?
£3.99 a minute.
In trying to become equal with men, some women are attempting to take over the position of dominant sex. Instead of clawing their way up, they are dragging the poor men who get in their way, down. Wasn't the point to get treated fairly rather than treat others unfairly because of their opposing gender? Do the words 'become what they set out to destroy' spring to anyone else's mind?
