An acquaintance sent me this link a day
ago when I was on the verge of abandoning certain things in the cyber space,
but keeping that aside here's the video: : http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27891488
|
.jpg)
"Dress code debate over schoolgirls
'distracting' boys
18
June 2014 Last updated at 02:56 BST
Most students in the US do not have to wear school uniforms, but that doesn't mean there isn't a battle over what clothes are deemed appropriate to wear in the classroom
Dress codes in most schools prohibit revealing outfits for girls such as short skirts or backless tops.
But some girls complain that the rules are enforced - and the girls then punished - because administrators think their clothes are 'distracting' to boys."
Most students in the US do not have to wear school uniforms, but that doesn't mean there isn't a battle over what clothes are deemed appropriate to wear in the classroom
Dress codes in most schools prohibit revealing outfits for girls such as short skirts or backless tops.
But some girls complain that the rules are enforced - and the girls then punished - because administrators think their clothes are 'distracting' to boys."
And from watching that video, there's one sentence in particular uttered
by one of those fine damsel that struck be beyond measure. Unless you are
already trying to make up your mind thinking that you "just know" the
sentence ("that was when I felt my body was an object- when they would
take a ruler and measure my thigh"), then NO!, it's not that! What struck
me more was "Men are animalistic." It felt
wrong somehow to me. Those were not words coming from that girl but rather from
society. This pre-conceived idea pierced my ear like nothing else indeed!
Well, from a strict anthropological perspective- men are not animalistic
as such. Keeping aside the biological factors that include some hormones that
give them more power- physically or more chunks of muscles that are meant to
make them look like they can defeat a jungle- I would perhaps argue that men
are not necessarily animalistic. I wonder if it is a biological urge to be
animalistic or a societal one? If the former is fine- then, are we still to
consider human kind not to have still mutated to a stage whereby it could go in
accordance with the civilisation it deems as being that of peace, enlightenment
and prosperity? And if the latter is true- then it really is a sick job society
is doing- and contrary to what this same society broadcasts, labelling,
socialising/nurturing and upbringing men to be animalistic is nowhere near to
the concept of civilisation.
So, coming back to the subject: by trying to cover women, are we not
merely trying to suppress what society calls the beast in men? What the F is
society doing to make things occur otherwise?
Have you ever pondered on the fact that man could be submissive, could
have the capacity to control themselves and very much endorse the female
qualities- ( perhaps if girls like me- i admit-were eradicated, this could be
possible- for we don't really give them an opportunity to prove themselves :(
And that's what society at large does also!)- for some this man could be called
a cissy but sociologist call this the "New Age Man” -(The sensitive new age nice guy- although
he says he wears no armor, he wears his issues on his chest;he's just trying to
be kind, a gentle, sensitive, understanding, sweet man is really a good find. He
likes to cook, he likes to clean, he has a very low self esteem.)
Have we ever considered the fact that men are not actually animalistic
as society claims? Could it be that we might have long got over this claim had
it not been for the perpetual proclamation that men are unable to imbibe
virtues? Society is somewhere down the line creating what could have been avoided-
making boys grow into animalistic beings.
No, not in the sense that they are true beast etc, but in that subtle sense that baffles me. You know those moments where- not only when the school asks you to wear a knee-length tunic so as not to distract boys- but when-especially in Indian households- have to bow down in front of the husband as advocated by the mother-in-laws of know their son's angst! Or those small thing like fearing being beaten up your husband or husband or boyfriend. Sure again- this is not the grand truth- but it is not only a minority of men who abuse of women. I think the whole society does. Including, myself, all other women and even the good men! It's pathetic.
Because we are all supporting those ideologies subtlely despite trying
to be egalitarian or radicalists. Somehow, society has been championing the
image only to retain patriarchy. Because if men were no more to be
animalistic- no more having the physicality- then women could live freely,
without the fear of constantly being told that their skirts are 1 cm or 17 mm
above their knees.Somehow- machoness and physicality is what really promulgated men on the higher pedestal- not only did this turn everything to their advantage for they've been the first sex in history to be mastering things around- from philosophy, to the ... And somehow- this is the civilisation that this patriarchal world has defined as being what worth fighting for is. A kind where caring, female virtues are considered as inferior. One where male dominance is what truly makes things run.
No wonder why wars are still seen as an option and peace even if it is now entering the space of diplomacy well, it's being carried out in the male manner of suppressing feelings and not really letting go of ancient enmities..
In that case, girls do get distracted by the awfully well-chiseled
muscles of boys. The muscles that pulsate under that skin, the veins are try to
fight for release from underneath- the way they slither on their calf a and
arms- and that masseter-strong masseter bone! Hello, administration- ask them
to start wearing long sleeves and trousers and perhaps a rugby head protector!
But here again- women are not animalistic! Aww- how wonderful- they can
resist the temptation, they have cooonnttrrooooll!!!
Men- the poor chaps- they don't! :'(
Hello?! Just because society has decided to control the way man
and woman act out in opposite ways- you don't come and tell me that woman have
control and man don't- because MAN DO HAVE CONTROL! Now, if it of sexual urges
that you are talking about- then there are men who do have control, follow
their steps! Oh- it's innate?! Really? Innate? But hey- how can you start
respecting nature- and things being innate when you've been destroying it?
Okay-fine, it's hormones?! Wow, right- hormones!
(Here, I honestly cannot say anything- because my personal belief- after
I tried to solve the nature and nurture debate is that Hormones and Society
control us more than we they do!)
So let's put our hands up to Mr. Hormones and Mrs.Society because they
both give birth to more like us every second of the day! Cheers!
I love my life! :(
"In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior apparently intended to dominate -- to enhance one's status over -- other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers.
The "chest thrust" is part of a basic postural message used across the animal kingdom—"standing tall." Dominant creatures puff up. Codfish bulge their heads and thrust our their pelvic fins. Snakes, frogs, and toads inflate their bodies. Antelope and chameleons turn broadside to emphasize their bulk. Mule deer look askance to show their antlers. Cats bristle. Pigeons swell. Lobsters raise themselves onto the tips of their walking legs and extend their open claws. Gorillas pound their chests. Men just thrust out their chests.
Then there is the swagger with which young men often move to and fro. Male baboons on the grasslands of East Africa also swagger when they foresee a potential sexual encounter. A male gorilla walks back and forth stiffly as he watches a female out of the corner of his eye. The parading gait is known to primatologists as bird-dogging. Males of many species also preen. Human males pat their hair, adjust their clothes, tug their chins, or perform other self-clasping or grooming movements that diffuse nervous energy and keep the body moving.
Young women begin the attention-getting phase with many of the same maneuvers that men use—smiling, gazing, shifting, swaying, preening, stretching, moving in their territory to draw attention to themselves. Often they incorporate a battery of feminine moves as well. They twist their curls, tilt their heads, look up coyly, giggle, raise their brows, flick their tongues, lick their upper lips, blush, and hide their faces in order to signal, "I am here." "
But to bring it on an strictly societal level-(because biology seems
to righteously validate men's "animalism"..), it's mostly
because society has not sexualised yet the diverse body parts of men- and even
if you have Taylor Lautner, Sidhart Malhotra and Dwayne Johnson pulling out
that sexual image- it would appear that sexualisation has a degree of extent
when pertained to the two different sexes.
THIS LAW PROMULGATES ONLY TWO THINGS- (1) WOMAN IS THE SLAVE, SO SHE OUGHT NOT DISTRACT THE MASTER WHO OUGHT NOT BE DISTRACTED! (2) WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT! BOTH TO THE BENEFIT OF MEN.
AND WHAT DOES WOMAN BENEFIT IN THAT: SHE
DOESN'T GET RAPED OR CALLED A SLUT! AGAIN BY MEN.
SO BASICALLY, THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND
MEN- WHY DON'T YOU KILL ALL THE WOMEN THEN?
WHY? THINK ABOUT IT AND KNOW THAT
THERE'S SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH OUR PARADIGMS. TERRIBLY WRONG. OR PERHAPS
WITH OUR HORMONES? BUT WHAT IF MALE WERE JUST MEANT TO BE ANIMALISTIC AND WOMEN
NOT. WHAT IF BY DREAMING FOR OTHERWISE, FEMINIST ARE GOING AGAINST NATURE?!
WHAT'S RIGHT? WHAT'S WRONG?! NATURE?
NURTURE?
V/S
.jpg)
P.S. As Emerson put it, "Love is strongest in pursuit, friendship in possession."
Love+Pursuit= Courtship
Courtship= Flirtatious relationship, allowance for dominance and submission
*Acquaintance- this is everything that went through my mind whilst watching that video! :P