The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > In the face of 'culture' > Comments

In the face of 'culture' : Comments

By Jocelynne Scutt, published 3/9/2012

Culture, commerce and control versus the right to be girls.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
<Paid employment, female labour force participation, secondary school enrolment for girls, and child and maternal morality [sic] rates figure strongly in SIGI, statistics showing that countries with 'higher levels of discrimination against women perform more poorly on [these] development indicators'>
This delightful (presumably) Freudian slip--lasciviousness is the upshot of discrimination?--points up how antiquated the qualitative notion of morality is. We now occupy a world numbers and morality is quantitative, if not obsolete. Jocelynne surely meant "mortality", which is much easier to assess--as well as being indiscriminately abhorred by all.

I'm encouraged by this article though; as with Jocelynne's last, one can infer that all's not well in paradise--though the focus remains myopically on one gender. I'd love to say that "woman-as-independent, as her own woman" is anachronistic, but in fact it's delusional. We are all, male and female, of a culture and its set of norms, and were never independent. We flatter ourselves but individuality is nothing more than egotism.
But yet I agree with Jocelynne that it's worth aspiring to independence within cultural constraints. But there's none of that for us; we're as predictable as lab rats. I think it's appalling the way women heed the siren song of the market, the way Target et al exploit sexuality to groom adolescent males and females and sell product.
But I'm just a mad radical and all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 3 September 2012 6:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers never stop being a radical thinker. Actually you are not really that radical, you just look beyond what is fed to us on a daily basis. Being 'unfashionable' or denying the trend is not radical. :)

As for the article, there is no doubt about the disadvantage women experience in the developing world, and the issue of forced marriage which still continues in the West despite laws that ban it's practice.

The growing sexualisation of children is immoral and is largely ignored in an emperor's new clothes kind of way, due to the notion of profit and productivity.

It always strikes as odd that music videos are hyper sexualised when in reality (based on my experience) it is the tweens and early teens that are the largest viewers.

However I tend to cringe when reading statments along the lines of "..women continue to 'face barriers' preventing their full contribution to social and economic life." The author, I have no doubt, means it with the best intentions.

Who gets to decide how someone contributes to social and economic life. What does that even mean. What if someone chooses to opt out to some extent, live on a bit of land growing their own veg and in paid work accooding to his/her needs. Why is contributing about serving a higher purpose within a capitalist context of a man-made notion of productivity. For what purpose does it serve. Men and women are both slaves to 'productivity contribution' type of thinking but only if they allow it. In the West we have some choices but in the developing world there is little in the way of choices.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 3 September 2012 7:08:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

The capitalist West has also had a hand in usurping the contribution and autonomy of women in the "developing" world. Mechanisation, monoculture, pesticides and fertilizers have been introduced, ruining the environment and unbalancing the status quo. Corporations now seek to control the seed market, and all these things impact on the lives and well-being of women in the third world.

This is the big picture which no-one seems to include when looking at the impact on the lives of women as affected by globalised infrastructure, which represents the antithesis of the cooperative sustainable, meaningful and autonomous work ethic of women in traditional societies.

http://www.navdanya.org/diverse-women-for-diversity/64
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 September 2012 8:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dunno squeers, I reckon it is possible to become an individual, you just have to sacrifice being part of society. It's something I have often contemplated. I was too slow off the mark to live outside the system with no traceable identification past a birth certificate, but my second option, that being chosen insanity, I also rejected due to the lack of autonomy, which was short sighted in retrospect, being as though autonomy is related to freedom which is a mythical socially constructed aspiration. The option's still there for most of course, and I believe the more fully one can retreat into their own reality the more truly individual one can become, though having children has eliminated this option for me along with suicide. I vividly remember this realisation adding some bitter to the sweet joy of becoming a father. It's the ultimate loss of autonomy, I mourned it. You could say the morality of not wanting to devastate young children in this way is constructed of course, but you could also argue the purity of childhood innocence and love represents an absolute so powerful as to render morality insignificant. The vicarious enjoyment I receive in observing their inner world and the enjoyment in relating with my children seems to compensate, but the nagging feeling is still sometimes felt.

I tend to cringe when reading statments along the lines of "..women continue to 'face barriers'

I'm with you pelican. Welcome back. Aside from the actual term which belongs up there with steak-holders, I'm sick of this undefined and victim positioning language that is to be taken as read or supposed to illicit nodding agreement. Everyone faces barriers, always have and always will. People have different barriers, genders, class, race, personality type, parental conditioning, are we to consider nobody should be ever expected to overcome them?

I'd love to be a woman, I could fail in the comforting knowledge I 'faced barriers', unique womanly barriers, and people would silently lament my hardship, and nothing would ever be my fault or my responsibility.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:52:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I very nearly got to the end of the article in total agreement with Jocelynne Scutt – regardless of history, tradition, cultural precedent or practice – underage and involuntary marriage is unjustifiable and wrong.

But… to include the Target Twittered rankles as in any way a comparable imposition on 'the right to be girls' beggars belief.

I see nothing wrong with mothers – who are so concerned about the styles of clothing on offer – being able to make a decision, accept responsibility and shop somewhere else… and if that means denying their daughters what they want to wear, tough.

Just tell them to be grateful that they don't live in a developing country or they'd be sold into a forced marriage in a nearby village.

I've seen shoppers at Target – both male and female – and such a significant proportion seemed to be intent on torture stretch-testing trackkie dacks and moccasins that I'm certain stylistic concern, let alone being cultured, isn't high on their agenda.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 1:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we've been here before on the issue of Westernised girls clothing, accessories and toys.

Who buys girls these sexualised items? Do dads trot off to Target to purchase revealing outfits for their daughters?
Nope, it's mothers who choose costumes for their daughters and who acquiesce to revealing or sexualised wear for their older daughters.

Part of the problem is herd mentality, and many formative years having it drilled into you that you have no capacity to think for yourself.

Mothers and parents in general do not have to purchase this type of clothing for their daughters - they just don't have to do it. Why blame the purveyor when it is so simple to clothe your child "appropriately" to whichever standard you desire.

Pelican is right, that in the West we do have choices that those in less industrialised societies don't have. We don't necessarily have to follow the herd, and we do have a modicum of influence over the choices our daughters make. We simply need to think for ourselves and act accordingly.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 2:24:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy