drzaiustheape said: In your picture talking about how in the 100 thousands more women are abused or some shit along the lines of that. I think you need to compare those 'statistics' to countries like Saudi Arabia and China where women are really disadvantaged. Fuck you
Newsflash: Women Are Not In A Competition For Human Rights
Here’s an idea: If you hear about a horrific injustice perpetrated against girls and women, try not to use that story as a weapon to silence other women who are fighting their own battles against violence and discrimination.
When a South Korean ferry capsizes and hundreds die do you see media pundits tweeting that the victims of boat crashes in the U.S. should stop talking and take a hard look at what a really terrible disaster looks like? When prisoners in Egypt die, do they say to those raped or shackled while giving birth in U.S. jails, “See, those prisoners over there have it really bad”? When members of the LGTBQ community in Russia are brutally assaulted, do you hear people say to those here, “Now those people, they have something to complain about”?
But, women? Well, like you, everyone’s an expert on exactly what level of misogyny and violence is acceptable. You sound like media pundit Tom Bevan who recently tweeted: “Real war on women: Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death by own family for marrying the man she loved.” Within hours of Bevan’s tweet, journalist David Frum shared the sad and enraging news about two Dalit girls, gang-raped, who hanged themselves from a tree: “The next time somebody talks about ‘misogyny in American society,’ forward them this.”
What are you, six?
This is a “stock” formulation, a knee-jerk response for many people, especially conservatives. There are people suffering far more violence and social ills elsewhere, always, and we should think about that. But, it’s immediately insulting because it implies that those protesting violence and talking about sexism in the United States (and the rest of the developed world) are too stupid to understand that there is a spectrum of violence.
Your statement ignores the glaring fact that the spectrum we live with, globally, is one where women aresubject to gender-based violence. There is nowhere that this is not true. Everywhere, we face the political, legislative, and legal regulation of our bodies and reproduction in ways men don’t and we live, daily, with the real and abiding costs of avoiding or living with violence perpetrated almost exclusively by men. Many men apparently still doubt this, even after millions of women tell them that it’s true.
Last week this commentary was more visible because in the days since Elliot Rodger’s killing spree the trending of #YesAllWomen catalyzed unprecedented media conversations about gender and misogyny. Quick as a flash the Misogynistic Theory of Women’s Relative Rights made its rote appearance: Women “here” are so much “better off” than women “over there.” Pick your “here,” “better,” and “over there.”
Women are not in a competition for female human rights.
The implication is that we, “here,” are supposed to be comforted that two girls were raped and hanged themselves in India. Do more men in India, per capita, throw acid on women than men in the United States douse them in gas and light them on fire? Every woman on a South African women’s soccer team has been raped, isn’t it better that on our national team chances are only two or three? I don’t understand why anyone thinks this is a “reasonable” and “balanced” thing to suggest. What is the point of this equation other than to put on display the sexist notion that women’s safety and rights are relative and contingent on other women’s lack of safety and rights? What is it about the notion of non-negotiable rights, human rights, for women, that is so hard to understand?
In case it’s not clear, this is what that way of phrasing says to the people who work to end this violence:
- Women’s rights are a zero sum game played by women only, apparently outside of the scope of human rights.
- Your concerns, “here,” are trivial.
- We treat “our” women better than “they” treat “their” women. You are “lucky.” We could be doing this to you here.
- There is a just-right goldilocks temperature for global gender-based violence and the cultural subordination of women. Really. I’ll decide what it is.
- I am hugely privileged and have no real idea what I am talking about, but feel I have the authority to speak.
- Stop talking. Stop talking. Stop talking. (Actually, “Stop whining” is more the suggestion of the “I’ll show them what’s really bad.”)
Comparing women’s security and freedom in this way does nothing useful or helpful at all. Instead, it demonstrates an inability to consider privilege and power when it comes to matters involving women.
Have a nice day.
And how hard is it to land even a minimum-wage job? This year, the Ivy League college admissions acceptance rate was 8.9%. Last year, when Walmart opened its first store in Washington, D.C., there were more than 23,000 applications for 600 jobs, which resulted in an acceptance rate of 2.6%, making the big box store about twice as selective as Harvard and five times as choosy as Cornell. Telling unemployed people to get off their couches (or out of the cars they live in or the shelters where they sleep) and get a job makes as much sense as telling them to go study at Harvard.
Don’t get me started.
I think people don’t understand what the unemployment rate means. It means the number of jobs there ARE compared to the number of people there are looking for jobs.
People seem to somehow think that the unemployment rate is the number of people sitting around unemployed, as if there are thousands of companies with open positions and since the unemployed people all keep sitting on their butts, those companies are just somehow getting by without filling those positions????
The unemployment rate is the number of people who will be left over after all of the available jobs are filled.
It’s the number of people who are going to be wasting all of their waking hours each week looking for jobs that don’t exist.
fun fact: If you separate the 4 and the 2 making them different numbers. Then translate them into Japanese shi, and ni. Then put the words together, shini, it means death (shini-gami = god of death). So knowing that
The answer to the ultimate question… of life, the universe, and everything is…
That fact is not fun.
Well, the number 4 in Japanese can also be translated to Yon. So if we have the words Yon and Ni and then put them together, it is yonni, which translates to nothing (as far as i know) in Japanese, however, in Sanskrit, it means vagina.
So therefore, the answer to the ultimate question….of life, the universe, and everything is…
Life comes from the vagina only to be later greeted by death.
i just hit myself in the face my phone
Not so fun fact: Douglas Adams actually states that 42 was a random number that he picked off the top of his head and had no hidden, deeper meanings.
“It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one….I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought ‘42 will do’. I typed it out. End of story.” - Douglas Adams
That’s the beauty in it.
Fandom, “They author put so much meaning into the number 42 and look how meaningful it is!”
Author, “Lolz 42 will do.”
Literally English teachers