You'd better put that sexy Mrs. Claus costume back in the closet because you better dress up in a burqa for your holiday office party unless you want your rights taken away.
I'm not a fan of Fox News, but in a recent interview Marc Rudov (anti-women swine extraordinaire) suggested that "between the EEOC rules and the Violence Against Women Act, the workplace has become a dangerous place for men." His opponent in the debate, Lis Wiehl, made a solid point in that the EEOC rules and Violence Against Women Act are there to ensure fairness in the workplace. Please watch the video before continuing.
The world that Rudov is proposing is one where the rights of women are stripped by the inch of skin that they reveal. It's a world where women are stripped of their rights to protect "Constitutional rights" (read: men). Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, the Constitution protected both sexes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"If men say the wrong thing, they might end up without a job."
In what situation, sir, would it be appropriate to slap my coworker's ass and chortle, "Nice tits!"
Double standard, indeed.
There is virtually no difference between Rudov's argument and the arguments of fundamentalist Muslims that lead to women in such societies being forced to cover their skin. It all ties into this idea that somehow women are so "tempting" that men just can't resist! Therefore, it simply MUST be the woman's fault that she's so tempting. Right from the Biblical story about Eve making Adam eat the apple. Adam is the one responsible for his own choices; it is not Eve, nor other women, that should be blamed for his poor decisions.
I don't what to sound like the guy in the video, but here I go into a mild rant.
Whoah, biblical references? From what I know, Eve ate the apple too and first. Women aren't always innocent, saying stuff like that just takes steps backwards for womens rights. Everyone is equal right? So when things like that are said, no one wants to listen, and the cause is lost.
For a long time, the main interpretation of that biblical story was that Eve tricked Adam into eating the apple; the conclusion was that women are generally not to be trusted, that they are conniving, wicked creatures. What I am saying is that Adam's choices are his own, and that he had the choice to eat the fruit or not. Like in the modern day, if a woman is wearing "revealing" clothing, it is still the man's choice to harass her or not.
I'd also like to say that I realize in that story Eve eats the apple and is also at fault for doing so. I was just remarking upon the basis for the kind of sexim exists right from the supposed beginning of humanity.
*sexism
Okay, but could the point still be valid? I mean, everyone should be equal, and what happens (unrelated to the video or this context) once that line is crossed, what happens? What happens if a group gains equal rights but then more?
*second sentence and whole post is terribly written.
I don't mean to attack, I find this dialogue fascinating, really. But how can you have anything more than equal rights? Isn't "equal" a point on a scale and anything on either end is just farther away? My interpretation of "equal" is that either you meet it or you don't, so you can't have more equality than just equality.
I don't think any feminists would deny that at times women can be deceitful and conniving; thoes are human qualities that we all share. The problem is that women are still not "equal" in today's society. By discussing this video and what Rudov is saying, I'm trying to show how some interpretations of the Bible still lend credence to the notion that women are always "tempting" men. This is most certainly not the case, nor are women entirely innocent. They deserve to be treated as human beings, not sex objects that "lead men astray." We have not gotten to the point where women have more rights than men; in fact, we are nowhere near it.
More than equal as in now the party that had more rights, now has less or is treated in an unfairly way to make another group feel better (better of lack of thinking of a better word).
While I understood what you're saying, it doesn't apply to women in the modern world. Many have this idea that the feminist movement is radical because it is attempting to give women more rights than men. This is a complete falsehood; women still do not have the same rights as men. The feminist movement only attempts to close the gap. We are not yet at the point where women have more rights than men (we are not even close). If the status of men takes a hit because of increased equality, I'm all for that. I'm sure that slaveowners' rights were infringed upon, and that they had "less" after emancipation, but I don't really care. Just because some people crack jokes about men doesn't mean that they're being ill-treated or that they're somehow considered "less" than a woman.
I totally agree. Please notice that I tried to step away from womens rights!
The very definition of harassment and rape require that it is not planned for by the victim (male or female). If people get in trouble for harassment they don't commit, that's a problem, but it's not as big a problem as not having those laws set up to protect victims. That being said, in response to Rudov's proposal, I say that, while it may not be the best idea to wear a stripper suit or a banana hammock to an office party, businesspeople should be able to keep from harming their coworkers when they reveal *gasp* decolletage.
Post a Comment