Justin00
Active Member
Does anyone else not see it as blatantly sexist when we (news, politicians,.. everyone) group "women with children" separately from men in what is obviously considered to be a lesser and more defenseless category.
I just find it odd that this expression is used so widely on such a large scale yet i have never heard any objection. It seems strange than in the the age of equality and extreme fear of discrimination that we over look such an obvious slight about the weakness of the modern day woman.
I suppose a lot of it may generate from the lack of a requirement in the US for women to sign up for selective service. But I don't think it is exactly the same thing as the continued racial tension caused by the numerous "reverse racist" (for lack of a better word) organizations spreading "reverse discrimination" like the NAACP, BET, along with a number of other institutions aimed solely at the betterment of a specific race often at the cost of others, including educational scholarships limited to a specific race, television programming featuring entirely one race, and numerous public remarks by respected leaders that would be considered racist and politically incorrect if reversed. While similar groups exist in the feminist circles they seem far less pronounced and "in your face" thus seem to cause less of a response. Weather that is good or bad i guess depends on your perspective.
Back on topic, does it not just seem horribly 20th century to constantly group women with children rather than with men? I mean despite the fact that women are, generally speaking, physically smaller than men they are still much more similar to physical attributes of men than they are to children.
For sources read "ANY" war or attack related article!
If nothing else I hope my short post will serve to illuminate an alternate perspective on logic, humanity, and ethics.
Thanks for reading, J
I just find it odd that this expression is used so widely on such a large scale yet i have never heard any objection. It seems strange than in the the age of equality and extreme fear of discrimination that we over look such an obvious slight about the weakness of the modern day woman.
I suppose a lot of it may generate from the lack of a requirement in the US for women to sign up for selective service. But I don't think it is exactly the same thing as the continued racial tension caused by the numerous "reverse racist" (for lack of a better word) organizations spreading "reverse discrimination" like the NAACP, BET, along with a number of other institutions aimed solely at the betterment of a specific race often at the cost of others, including educational scholarships limited to a specific race, television programming featuring entirely one race, and numerous public remarks by respected leaders that would be considered racist and politically incorrect if reversed. While similar groups exist in the feminist circles they seem far less pronounced and "in your face" thus seem to cause less of a response. Weather that is good or bad i guess depends on your perspective.
Back on topic, does it not just seem horribly 20th century to constantly group women with children rather than with men? I mean despite the fact that women are, generally speaking, physically smaller than men they are still much more similar to physical attributes of men than they are to children.
For sources read "ANY" war or attack related article!
If nothing else I hope my short post will serve to illuminate an alternate perspective on logic, humanity, and ethics.
Thanks for reading, J
